ORDER 1. Applicant has moved this criminal miscellaneous stay application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in which he prayed that the judgment of conviction order dated 11.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp at Mahuwa, District Dausa in Sessions Case No.22/2012 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. State of Rohit Kumar & Ors, be stayed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing hardship due to judgment of conviction. Applicant's father has died on 01.06.2017. Sentence of applicant has been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.04.2016. Applicant had moved an application for compassionate appointment but due to conviction, Appointing Authority refused to give the appointment. So, application for stay of conviction be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on "Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang" (1995) 2 SCC 513 "Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan" 2013 SCC online Raj. 450, "Bhagwan Singh vs. State" 2009 WLC 575 , "Shivlal vs. State of Rajasthan" 2007 (3) RCC 1039, "Murarilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." 2009 (2) WLC 345 and "Navjot Singh Siddhu vs. State of Punjab" (2007) 2 SCC 574 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the parties. 6. Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Rama Narang's case(Supra) held as under :- "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. 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 to 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 persons 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." 7. In the present case, applicant wants to get compassionate appointment in place of his father who has expired on 01.06.2017. 8. In the present case, applicant wants to get compassionate appointment in place of his father who has expired on 01.06.2017. 8. In "Jagdish Prasad's case (Supra) there was conviction under Section 306, 498A and the appellant was working as LDC in the Education Department and has since retired but was denied pension on account of the conviction order. High Court directed that the judgment of conviction shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal. 9. I am of the view that once the consequences of conviction are made known to the Court, the Court is entitled to stay the conviction order. 10. Consequently, it is directed that the judgment of conviction order dated 11.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp at Mahuwa, District Dausa shall remain stayed, till pendency of the appeal.S