JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicants. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State. 2. Heard on IA No. 2717/2016, an application for suspension of conviction of applicant No. 1 Rameshchandra. 3. Applicant No. 1 Rameshchandra, his son Santosh, wife Shyamabai, son Devendra and daughter Mamta have been convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year’s RI and fine of Rs. 300/- with default clause. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant No. 1 is father-in-law of the complainant Rajeshwari and he was in Government service on the post of Assistant Grade-III in District Trade and Industries Center, Shajapur. The applicant’s sentence has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 29-10-2013. During pendency of this Revision applicant No. 1 was dismissed from his service vide order dated 26-3-2016 on the ground that he has been convicted for aforesaid offence. However, he was due for retirement on 31-3-2016. It is contended that the applicant No. 1 has maintained a good conduct and character through out his service. The conviction under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code has no nexus with the service of the applicant No. 1. Due to dismissal from service the applicant is deprived of from his retiral benefits and in old age he is in financial difficulty. The power of suspension of conviction has to be exercised only in rare cases depending on special facts of the case, The case of the applicant comes within the category of rare case, therefore, conviction be suspended till pendency of this Revision otherwise the applicant No. 1 has to suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated. For this purpose learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1003 . 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer and submits that there is a concurrent finding of courts below against applicant. Hence, the applicant’s case docs not fall in the category of rare cases. The applicant has already suffered the consequence of dismissal, therefore, prays, for dismissal of application. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 7. Hence, the applicant’s case docs not fall in the category of rare cases. The applicant has already suffered the consequence of dismissal, therefore, prays, for dismissal of application. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 7. It is settled law that the power of suspension of conviction has to be exercised only in rare cases depending on special facts of the case and if the public servant is convicted for corruption charges then such relief of suspension of conviction is not permissible. However, conviction of the accused liable to be suspended as injury that he would suffer if conviction is not suspended would be irreparable as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra). 8. Keeping in view the settled principle, I have examined the facts of this case. There is no nexus of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code with the Government service of applicant No. 1. In the old age the applicant is deprived of pensionary benefits due to this conviction. Certainly the applicant has to suffer irreparable loss. Hence, applicant’s case comes within the category of rare case. This revision shall likely to take time for final disposal. 9. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant No. 1 has made out a case for suspension of conviction, thus, the application (IA No. 2717/16) is allowed and the suspension of applicant No. 1 under section 498-A be kept in abeyance till pendency of this revision. 10. Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.