Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1499 (AP)

Lanka Bhaskara Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-22

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
ORDER : V.R.K.Krupa Sagar, J. Heard arguments of Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel representing on behalf of Sri Venugopala Rao Veerla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State 2. This Criminal Revision Case has arisen in the following circumstances: As against A.1 to A.5 in C.C.No.197 of 2014 prosecution was initiated before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli. Case against A.5 was quashed by a learned Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.4225 of 2015. Therefore, further proceedings took place as against A.1 to A.4. Charges under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed. After due trial learned trial Court acquitted A.2, A.3 and A.4 of all the charges. Learned trial Court found A.1 not guilty for the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly acquitted him. However, it found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and by judgment dated 27.08.2024 it convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 before learned Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The said appeal is pending. The convict filed Crl.M.P.No.369 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2024 under Section 389(1) Crl.P.C. praying for suspension of his conviction as well as suspension of execution of sentence. After due notice to the State and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant-convict and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned appellate Court by order dated 06.09.2024 allowed the petition in part and suspended the execution of substantive sentence and ordered for release of convict on bail. However, it declined to suspend or stay the conviction. It mentioned various reasons in passing the said order and stated that power conferred on the appellate Court under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is confined to suspension of execution of sentence and District Judiciary did not have power to suspend the conviction and mentioned that powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure would not be exercised by the District Judiciary. It was for those reasons it declined to grant the relief of suspension or stay of conviction. 4. It was for those reasons it declined to grant the relief of suspension or stay of conviction. 4. It is in the above referred circumstances, the convict preferred this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside that part of the impugned order of the appellate Court which refused to grant stay or suspension of conviction and prays this Court to grant the said relief of suspension or stay of conviction. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel cited: 1. Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513 2. Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673 3. Chanda Ram Shivsharan v. The State of Maharashtra, Order dated 09.08.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in I.A.No.1647 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.173 of 2022 5. This Court has considered the entire material that is placed on record and the rulings cited. The following aspects are to be stated: The revision petitioner is an Inspector of Police. In terms of Rule 9 sub clause (16) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and G.O.Rt.No.2752 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 11.12.2017, steps have been initiated on 05.09.2024 for dismissal of the revision petitioner from service within two months from the date of conviction judgment of the learned trial Court. These facts are not in dispute. Thus, in the event of not suspending the conviction or not staying the order of conviction, it would result in dismissal of the revision petitioner from service. In all the above referred rulings, principles have been laid down stating that person seeking stay or suspension of conviction should invite the attention of the Court to the subsequent consequence which is likely to fall upon conviction so as to enable the Court to apply its mind on that point before taking a decision about stay of conviction. It is undisputed on both sides that the charge for which the accused was convicted is not one which could be termed as a case involving moral turpitude. It is undisputed on both sides that the charge for which the accused was convicted is not one which could be termed as a case involving moral turpitude. One of the principal grounds urged before the appellate Court which admitted the appeal and adjourned it for hearing is that the judgment impugned is contradictory in terms since on one hand specific observations were made by the trial Court that there was no proof about demand for dowry and accordingly it acquitted the appellant from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but on the same allegation of demand for additional dowry the learned trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Added to that, the defence contention of delay in lodging the F.I.R. was also put forth. The above circumstances would show that a serving police officer would lose his employment and would be dismissed if conviction is not set aside. The appeal preferred before the appellate Court challenges the conviction as well as sentence. Execution of sentence was suspended. If conviction is not stayed, it would cost the employment of the appellant which may not be warranted in the light of contentions raised in the appeal. Since the judgment of the trial Court regarding the conviction itself is under challenge and since the appeal was admitted for hearing, there is every justification to stay the conviction and prevent dismissal from service till the disposal of the criminal appeal before the appellate Court. 6. The grounds urged and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioner show that at present the parents of the revision petitioner are old and sick and his father is in ICU at Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam and is undergoing treatment and his mother suffered fractures and is undergoing treatment. As a serving officer the petitioner is able to cope up and in the event of dismissal from service it would be hazardous even to his parents. In fact the learned appellate Court positively considered all these aspects and in the hearing before this Court the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State admits the truth of such ailments of the parents of the revision petitioner. What restrained the learned appellate Court was its apprehension that it did not have the power to suspend the conviction. In fact the learned appellate Court positively considered all these aspects and in the hearing before this Court the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State admits the truth of such ailments of the parents of the revision petitioner. What restrained the learned appellate Court was its apprehension that it did not have the power to suspend the conviction. The learned Senior Counsel rightly pointed out principles of law in this regard while referring to Rama Narang’s case (supra) and Ravikant S. Patil’s case (supra 2). Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India positively stated that the power to suspend conviction can also be read in Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and further their Lordships held that if there is a doubt or apprehension the power could be exercised by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reference to Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the above cited rulings made the learned appellate Court not to grant the relief. Be that as it may. As the facts on record and the effect of the order of conviction on the continuance of employment of the revision petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer made for stay of conviction has to be granted. 7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction of the revision petitioner/A.1 imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli in the judgment dated 27.08.2024 in C.C.No.197 of 2014 is suspended. To that extent, the prayer made in Crl.M.P.No.369 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram stands allowed. Thus, the prayers for suspension of conviction and suspension of execution of sentence prayed by this revision petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.369 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2024 stand granted. This order holds good till the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.