Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 848 (JHR)

Shambhu Sharan Singh v. State through C. B. I.

2015-07-24

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT R.R. PRASAD, J. 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of the order dated 22.12.2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for each of the offence and further to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the offence. 2. Mr. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as Branch Manager under the establishment of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Deoghar and was put to trial on the allegation of accepting illegal gratification and was convicted. At the same time, for the said charge, the appellant was also put to departmental proceeding whereby punishment has been imposed of reduction of pay and now a notice has been issued to the appellant to show cause as to why not he be removed from the service and that is the reason for the appellant to file an application under Section 389(1) of Cr. P.C. for suspension of the order of conviction, as only on the ground that the appellant has been convicted, the department is contemplating to remove the appellant from the service and therefore, under the circumstances, when the authority does not have any right under Rule to issue such kind of notice, the judgment of conviction be stayed. 3. Mr. Rai, learned senior counsel further submits that it is true that the appellant has been convicted on a corruption charge, but it can not itself be a complete bar for staying the order of conviction as even in case of conviction on corruption charge , the order of conviction can be stayed but in an exceptional circumstance, which proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384 . 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that since the appellant has been convicted on a corruption charge, the judgment of conviction never warrants to be stayed, in view of the decision rendered in a Case of K.C. Sareen vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320 . 5. 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that since the appellant has been convicted on a corruption charge, the judgment of conviction never warrants to be stayed, in view of the decision rendered in a Case of K.C. Sareen vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320 . 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. it be stated that the application under Section 389(1) Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant, as according to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a notice has been served upon the appellant, calling upon him to show cause as to why not, he be removed from the service. 6. This Court is not required to go into the legality and propriety of that notice. 7. However, submission was also advanced that if the judgment of conviction is not stayed, the appellant is likely to be removed from the service and, therefore, the judgment of conviction be stayed, but on that ground, stay of the order of conviction, cannot be granted, in view of the decision rendered in a case of K.C. Sareen (supra) wherein, it has been held that:- “A government servant who had been convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act would lose his job in the event that the conviction was not stayed. The Court held that when a public servant is found guilty of corruption by a Court, he has to be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court in appeal/revision. Mere stay of the conviction during the pendency of the appeal should not confer any benefit upon such an employee, for the reason that if such a public servant is permitted to hold office and to perform official acts (unless he is absolved from such findings by a superior Court), public interest may suffer tremendously. It may also impair the moral of other persons manning such office and may further, erode the confidence of the people in public institutions, besides of course, demoralising all other honest public servants.” 8. According to Mr. It may also impair the moral of other persons manning such office and may further, erode the confidence of the people in public institutions, besides of course, demoralising all other honest public servants.” 8. According to Mr. Rai, though such observation had been made in K.C. Sareen Case (supra), but subsequently, in a case of State of Maharashtra (supra), it has been observed that normally stay of conviction be not granted in a case if one is held guilty in a corruption charge but in an exceptional case, order of conviction can be stayed. 9. It is true that such observation has been made by Their Lordships but that is not in context of conviction on corruption charge which is evident from Paras 13 and 14 of the said judgment State of Maharashtra (supra), which read as follows:- 13. The instant case is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. The relevant part of the impugned order reads as under:- As the applicant would suffer serious prejudice on account of order of dismissal, in my opinion, the applicant is justified in applying to this Court for suspending the order of conviction so that the Department shall not precipitate the matter further. The applicant through counsel fairly submits that relying on this order, the applicant will not claim further relief of setting aside the order of suspension which is already operating against the applicant passed by the Department on 1st November, 2007. 14. The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not sustainable in law if examined in light of the aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employees/Respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits. The submission made on behalf of the Respondent, that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order at such a belated stage, has no merit for the reason that this Court, vide order dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation of the said impugned order. 10. The submission made on behalf of the Respondent, that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order at such a belated stage, has no merit for the reason that this Court, vide order dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation of the said impugned order. 10. Thus there appears to be no deviation from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier that the relief of stay of 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. Accordingly, the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application for suspension of the order of conviction of the appellant, is hereby, rejected. I.A. No. 3937 of 2015 stands rejected.