Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 345 (CHH)

Laxmi Narayan Sao v. State of Chattisgarh

2014-09-15

SANJAY K.AGARWAL

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for stay of conviction under Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C. for brevity). 2. The question falls for consideration is whether applicant No. 2 Golu alias Devendra Kumar is entitled for stay of conviction under Section 389(2) of the Cr. P.C. 3. The applicant No. 2 has been convicted under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for brevity) along with applicant No. 1 Laxmi Narayan Sao and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 100/- for commission of offence under Section 447 of the IPC and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 200/- and till rising of Court for commission of offence under Section 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. Criminal appeal filed by the applicants before the Court of Session, Raigarh, which was dismissed by judgment dated 29/04/2014. 5. Questioning the impugned judgment affirming their conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC, they have preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. 6. I.A. No. 01 of 2014 has been filed for stay of conviction under Section 389(2) of the Cr. P.C. by the applicant No. 2 herein stating that he is employed and working in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur and if the impugned conviction is not stayed, he will lose his job, and thereby he will be deprived of his source of livelihood. Thus, in sum and substance, the applicant No. 2 has prayed for stay of conviction and thereby he has prayed for stay of operation of the effects of the declaration of being guilty. 7. In order to decide as to whether applicant No. 2 is entitled for stay of impugned judgment, it would be proper to notice the relevant judicial decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court to stay the conviction. 8. In Ravikant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673 : 2006 AIR SCW 6365 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that the power to stay the conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. 9. 8. In Ravikant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673 : 2006 AIR SCW 6365 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that the power to stay the conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. 9. In Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2007) 2 SCC 574 : AIR 2007 SC 1003 , followed the decision of Ravikant S. Patil (supra) and at paragraph-6, held as follows: "6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case." 10. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, 2012 (12) SCC 384 , referring also to the two decisions cited above, it has been held at paragraph-15 that: "15. the appellate court in an exceptional case, may put the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but such power must be exercised with great circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of action by it. The court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done." 11. In State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan and Another, (2003) 12 SCC 432 : 2004 Cri. The court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done." 11. In State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan and Another, (2003) 12 SCC 432 : 2004 Cri. L.J. 919 and in Union of India vs. Atar Singh and Another, (2003) 12 SCC 434, cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Supreme Court had to deal with specific situation of loss of job and it has been held that it is not one of exceptional cases for staying the conviction. 12. Very recently in Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (8) SCALE 740, it has been held that deprived of source of livelihood is not a ground for staying the conviction by observing as under:- "13. In the light of the principles stated above, the contention that the appellant will be deprived of his source of livelihood if the conviction is not stayed cannot be appreciated. For the appellant, it is a matter of deprivation of livelihood but he is convicted for deprivation of life of another person. Until he is otherwise declared innocent in appeal, the stain stands. The High Court has discussed in detail the background of the appellant, the nature of the crime, manner in which it was committed, etc. and has rightly held that it is not a very rare and exceptional case for staying the conviction." 13. In the light of principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, the question is whether the applicant No. 2 has made out an exceptional case to stay the conviction. 14. Taking into consideration the concurrent finding of two Courts below holding the applicant No. 2 is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC and further considering the nature of offence and the manner in which offence was committed, the applicant No. 2 has failed to make out an exceptional case for stay of conviction, as such, the conviction of applicant No. 2 cannot be stayed merely on the ground that it will affect his career and he is likely to lose his job. I.A. No. 01 of 2014 stands rejected. Order accordingly.