http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1506-1507 of 2003

PETITIONER: State of Maharashtra                                     

RESPONDENT: Gajanan & Anr.                                       

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

2 2336-2337 2003

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       Leave granted.

       By the impugned judgment the High Court while  entertaining a criminal appeal against an order of conviction  recorded by the Special Court against the respondents  herein for an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of  Corruption Act, (the Act) not only stayed the sentence  imposed by the trial court but also proceeded to stay the  conviction which could facilitate the respondent public  servant to continue to hold the civil post in spite of the  conviction recorded against him. While doing so the High  Court rejected the objection of the State as also  distinguished the judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen v.  CBI, Chandigarh (2001 (6) SCC 584) on facts.          Having perused the impugned order as also the  judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen (supra), we find the  High Court had no room for distinguishing  the law laid  down by this Court in K.C. Sareen’s case (supra) even on  facts. This Court in the said case held :

       "The legal position, therefore, is this:  though the power to suspend an order of  conviction, apart from the order of sentence,  is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its  exercise should be limited to very  exceptional cases. Merely because the  convicted person files an appeal in challenge  of the conviction the court should not  suspend the operation of the order of  conviction. The court has a duty to look at  all aspects including the ramifications of  keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in  the light of the above legal position that we  have to examine the question as to what  should be the position when a public servant  is convicted of an offence under the PC Act.  No doubt when the appellate court admits  the appeal filed in challenge of the  conviction and sentence for the offence  under the PC Act, the superior court should  normally suspend the sentence of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

imprisonment until disposal of the appeal,  because refusal thereof would render the  very appeal otiose unless such appeal could  be heard soon after the filing of the appeal.  But suspension of conviction of the offence  under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of  imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a  different matter." (emphasis supplied)

       In the said judgment of K.C. Sareen (supra), this  Court has held that it is only in very exceptional cases that  the court should exercise such power of stay in matters  arising out of the Act. The High Court has in the impugned  order nowhere pointed out what is the exceptional fact  which in its opinion required it to stay the conviction. The  High Court also failed to note the direction of this Court  that it has a duty to look at all aspects including  ramification of keeping such conviction in abeyance. The  High Court, in our opinion, has not taken into consideration  any of the above factors while staying the conviction. It  should also be noted that the view expressed by this Court  in K.C. Sareen’s case (supra) was subsequently approved  followed by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v.  Atar Singh & Anr. [JT 2001 (10) SC 212].

       For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed.  The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are  allowed.