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

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A. JAGANATHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KURDUKAR S.P. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   621        1996 SCALE  (5)382

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Counsel for parties are heard.      The  respondents   in  these   four  appeals   are  the Government employees.  All the  four were  convicted by  the Judicial Magistrate, Erode for various criminal offences and sentenced to  undergo various sentences. The said conviction and sentences  were affirmed by the Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Erode. The respondents then approached the High Court in Criminal  Revision accompanied  with an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of convictions as well as the sentences. The High Court after considering the ambit and scope  of the  provisions contained  in Sections 374 and 880(1) of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure and the relevant provisions of  Law and relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others [ (1995) 2 S.C.C.  513 ],  took the  view that  for the reasons to be recorded in  writing by  the appellate Court, the conviction or order of sentence can be suspended during the pendency of the same.  The High  Court also took the view that the power of the  appellate Court  or the  High Court  to suspend  the conviction  or  sentence  is  always  inherent  and  can  be exercised at  any stage,  subject to  the condition that the appellate Court should be approached and satisfied with the reasonings to be recorded in writing and further, if any one wants to  stop the proceedings which have been initiated for disqualification or  removal from  service or  reduction  in rank in respect of a public servant one has to look into the moral conduct  very much  involved in  such a  case and only when the  Court is  satisfied with  such conduct,  then  the remedy provided  under different  statute cannot  at all  be stopped.  After   taking   the   aforesaid   view   and   on consideration of  the fact  that the  respondents will loose the  meagre  stipend,  if  the  prayer  for  suspending  the conviction during  the pendency  of  the  revisions  is  not granted,  passed   the  impugned   orders   suspending   the

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

conviction  as   well  as   the  sentences  awarded  to  the respondents. It  is against  these orders that the State has filed these  appeals. The  submission of the learned counsel appearing for  the State  is that  the High Court has passed the impugned orders relying on the decision in Rama Narang’s case (supra)  wherein this  Court  took  the  view  that  in appropriate  oases  the  conviction  and  sentences  can  be suspended in  exercise of  powers under. Section 482 Cr.P.C, After going  through the  decision referred to above and the facts of  the present  case we find that the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the cases before us. In Rama  Narang’s case  (supra) the conviction and sentences both were  suspended on the reasoning that if the conviction and sentences  are not  suspended the damage would be caused which could  not be undone if ultimately the revision of the appellants of  that case  was allowed.  But in  the  present case, we  find that in the event the revisions against their conviction and  sentences are  allowed by the High Court the damage, if  any, caused  to the  respondents with  regard to payment of stipend etc. can well be revived and made good to the respondents.  If such  trifling matters  are taken  into consideration, we  think, then every conviction will have to be  suspended  pending  appeal  or  revision  involving  the slightest disadvantage to a convict. That being so the facts of the decision relied on have no application to the present case. This  apart, the High Court though made an observation but did  not consider  at  all  the  moral  conduct  of  the respondents inasmuch  as respondent  Jaganathan who  was the Police Inspector  attached to  Erode Police Station has been convicted under  Sections 392,  218 and  466 IPC,  while the other respondents  who are  also public  servants have  been convicted under  the provision  of Prevention  of Corruption Act. In  such a  case the discretionary power to suspend the conviction either under Sections 389(1) or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should  not have been exercised. The orders impugned thus cannot be sustained.      For the  reasons stated  above the  impugned orders are set aside  to the  extent of  suspension of  conviction. The order with  regard to  the suspension of sentences, however, is maintained. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.