JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 as also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner with the prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the application for suspending the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was rejected on the ground that such order can be passed only in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which that Court does not possess. Prayer has also been made to stay the judgment of conviction for the aforesaid offence dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned trial court till disposal of the Appeal No.77/2017. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving on the post of Subedar Major in Indian Army since 25.02.1991 and his retirement is due on 31.07.2018. An FIR was lodged against him on false facts for the offence under Section 498A IPC after 24 years of marriage. Learned trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offence vide judgment dated 20.11.2017. Accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against that judgment, which is pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bandikui. An application moved by the accused-petitioner for stay of the conviction was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2017 by learned appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retirement of petitioner is due just after eight months and on account of the conviction for the offence under Section 498A IPC, he will be terminated from the service and resultantly, he will also be deprived of the retiral benefits i.e. Pension, Gratuity and other facilities. This will be the consequence which is unrelated to the subject matter of the criminal appeal. He would be deprived of the mere subsistence in the evening of his life by stoppage of pensionary benefits. Counsel submits that these are the hardships which cannot be undone, if the petitioner succeeds in appeal and his conviction is set-aside at a later point of time. Counsel prays that taking note of such exceptional circumstances, the petition may kindly be allowed. 5. To support his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments :- (I)- Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 450. (II)- Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. Counsel prays that taking note of such exceptional circumstances, the petition may kindly be allowed. 5. To support his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments :- (I)- Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 450. (II)- Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 . (III)- Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 513 . (IV)- Subhash Kholiya Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.1682/2017 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.317/2017 – decided on 01.06.2017. (V)- Sunder Lal Vs. State, reported in 2008(2) Cri. L.R. 1493. (VI)- Shivlal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007(3) RCC 1039. (VII)- Bhagwan Singh Vs. State, reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 575. (VIII)- Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006(3) R.Cr.D. 302 (Raj.). (IX)- Maqsood Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 801. (X)- Harish Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 422. (XI)- Shaitan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006(1) RCC 179. (XII)- Murarilal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 345. (XIII)- Kanhaiya Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001(3) WLC (Raj.) 411. (XIV)- Laxman Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2006(1) RLW 121. (XV)- K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 . (XVI)- State of Punjab Vs. Deepak Mattu, reported in AIR 2008 SC 35 . (XVII)- Sheo Parsan Dubey Vs. State of Bihar – Criminal Appeal No.1218/2008 – decided on 08.09.2010. (XVIII)- Pawan Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4638/2013) – decided on 14.12.2013. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer stating that termination from service is not the sole ground on which the conviction awarded by the trial court can be suspended. Such order can be passed only in exceptional circumstances, which are absent in the case in hand. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment rendered in the following cases :- (I)- Shyam Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2014(Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 192. (II)- Sushil & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan – D.B. Criminal Stay No.1452/2017 – decided on 06.09.2017. 7. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment rendered in the following cases :- (I)- Shyam Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2014(Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 192. (II)- Sushil & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan – D.B. Criminal Stay No.1452/2017 – decided on 06.09.2017. 7. On perusal of the above cited judgments, this Court is of the considered view that termination of service or loss of employment cannot be the sole ground on the basis of which the conviction awarded by the trial court can be suspended. It has also been laid down in the judicial pronouncements mentioned above that if a person is guilty of corruption or of any offence involving moral turpitude, his conviction cannot be suspended. 8. In the case of Sushil & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “Therefore, we are of the opinion that for the purpose of deciding application to stay the conviction evidence cannot be assessed so as to ascertain whether the applicants are guilty for the offence or not because it is not permissible in law to stay the conviction only on the ground that applicants will lose their livelihood and service. In the light of the above legal position, we hold that loss of job cannot be treated a valid consideration for grant of rare remedy of staying the order of conviction.” 9. In the case of Shyam Narain Pandey Vs. Sate of U.P. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “It may be noticed that even for the suspension of the sentence, the court has to record the reasons in writing under Section 389(1) Cr.PC. Couple of provisos were added under Section 389(1) Cr.PC pursuant to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India and observations of this Court in various judgments, as per Act 25 of 2005. It was regarding the release on bail of a convict where the sentence is of death or life imprisonment or of a period not less than ten years. If the appellate court is inclined to consider release of a convict of such offences, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity for showing cause in writing against such release. It was regarding the release on bail of a convict where the sentence is of death or life imprisonment or of a period not less than ten years. If the appellate court is inclined to consider release of a convict of such offences, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity for showing cause in writing against such release. This is also an indication as to the seriousness of such offences and circumspection which the court should have while passing the order on stay of conviction. Similar is the case with offences involving moral turpitude. If the convict is involved in crimes which are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, if the conviction also is stayed, it would have serious impact on the public perception on the integrity institution. Such orders definitely will shake the public confidence in judiciary. That is why, it has been cautioned time and again that the court should be very wary in staying the conviction especially in the types of cases referred to above and it shall be done only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice.” (emphasis added) 10. While relying upon the judgment in State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai Vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 384 , which has been further followed in Shyam Narain Pandey’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “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. (emphasis added) 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. So far as the judgments mentioned at Sr. 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. So far as the judgments mentioned at Sr. No.(IV) to (XVIII) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the conviction order was suspended on the ground that termination or loss of employment will be caused to the petitioner if the conviction is allowed to continue. In view of the judgment relied upon by the rival side, I am convinced that conviction cannot be suspended on this ground alone. But in my considered view, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the respondent also speak of the power of this Court to suspend the conviction, if some special circumstances exist. 12. Now, I proceed to consider other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “4. In my opinion, the accused-applicant, on the face of the judgment of the trial court and conviction under Section 306 and 498A IPC, cannot be said to be involved in any matter relating to corruption or criminal misconduct in service or moral turpitude. Taking into consideration the accused-applicant’s age and the necessity of the subsistence in the evening of his life, I would be inclined to stay the conviction of the accused-applicant to eschew the unintended consequence of the conviction and undeserved hardship unrelated to the subject matter of this criminal appeal.” 14. In Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 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.” (emphasis added) 15. In Rama Narang Vs. 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.” (emphasis added) 15. In Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “19. That takes us to the question whether the scope of Section 389(1) of the Code extends to conferring power on the Appellate Court to stay the operation of the order of conviction. As stated earlier, if the order of conviction is to result in some disqualification of the type mentioned in Section 267 of the Companies Act, we see no reason why we should give a narrow meaning to Section 389(1) of the Code to debar the court from granting an order to that effect in a fit case. The appeal under Section 374 is essentially against the order of conviction because the order of sentence is merely consequential thereto; albeit even the order of sentence can be independently challenged if it is harsh and disproportionate to the established guilt. Therefore, when an appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code the appeal is against both the conviction and sentence and therefore, we see no reason to place a narrow interpretation on Section 389(1) of the Code not to extend it to an order of conviction, although that issue in the instant case recedes in the background because High Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code if the power was not to be found in Section 389(1) of the Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay was not right in holding that the Delhi High Court could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code if it was confronted with a situation of there being no other provision in the Code for staying the operation of the order of conviction. In a fit case if the High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted person does not suffer from a certain disqualification provided for in any other statute, it may exercise the power because otherwise the damage done cannot be undone; the disqualification incurred by Section 267 of the Companies Act and given effect to cannot be undone at a subsequent date if the conviction is set aside by the Appellate Court. But while granting a stay of (sic or) suspension of the order of conviction the Court must examine the pros and cons and if it feels satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such an order, it may do so and in so doing it may, if it considers it appropriate, impose such conditions as are considered appropriate to protect the interest of the shareholders and the business of the company.” (emphasis added) 16. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court regarding suspension of the conviction order, this Court feels it imperative to see whether any such peculiar circumstances exist in the case in hand or not to suspend the conviction order. Such circumstance must, of course, be different from the loss of employment. In this regard, firstly, it is worth noting that offence under Section 498A IPC is not the offence relating to moral turpitude or corruption. Secondly, this is also worth consideration that if the order of conviction is allowed to exist, the retiral benefits of the accused-petitioner, as pleaded, will not be sanctioned to him and this may cause a great hardship to him in the fag end of his life. It is also true that if on later point of time, the accused-petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the hardship caused to him by being deprived of the pensionary benefits during the period for which conviction continues, cannot be undone. 17. In my view, these are special circumstances which make out the case of the accused-petitioner to allow suspension of the conviction recorded against him for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Accordingly, this Court feels inclined to stay the conviction to eschew the unintended consequence of the conviction and undeserved hardship, which may be caused to the petitioner. 17. In my view, these are special circumstances which make out the case of the accused-petitioner to allow suspension of the conviction recorded against him for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Accordingly, this Court feels inclined to stay the conviction to eschew the unintended consequence of the conviction and undeserved hardship, which may be caused to the petitioner. These consequences are in no way directly related to the conviction order awarded against the petitioner and the subject matter of the criminal appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner. 18. In view of above, the misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the appellate court is quashed and set-aside. The conviction order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned trial court is also kept in abeyance during the pendency of appeal preferred by the petitioner. 19. As the superannuation of the petitioner is due on 31.07.2018, it is further directed to the appellate court that every endeavour should be made to decide the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner, in accordance with law, prior to the date of his superannuation. The accused-petitioner is further directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal. In case, any attempt is made by him to hamper the disposal of appeal, respondent No.2 will be at liberty to approach this Court for modification/recalling of this order.