1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2678 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2006. Yadav S/o Ramlu Nilamwar ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.S.Shinde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 05.08.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application seeking suspension of conviction order rendered by learned Special Judge for offence punishable U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 2. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. So far as charge of corruption is concerned, the very fact that the applicant has been convicted on the basis of material placed on record, would prima facie show that he is involved in a case pertaining to offence of moral turpitude. The fact situation does not indicate any extraordinary reason to suspend the order of conviction. No doubt, in an appropriate case, the order of conviction can be suspended by this Court. Mr.Patil, learned A.P.P. referred to "K.C.Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh" AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3320, wherein, the Apex Court held that the power available U/s 389(1) of the Code should be exercised in very exceptional cases. It has been held that the Court has a duty to look at all aspects including ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is observed : "But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel 3 thereto, is a different matter." This view is reiterated in "State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan and another" 2004 AIR SCW 80. 4. The Apex Court in "State of Punjab Vs. Deepak Mattu" 2007 AIR SCW 6056, held that the order of suspension of conviction is not to be readily granted. The Apex Court held that the order passed by the High Court, whereby the conviction was suspended for the reason that a long time would be taken to decide the appeal and there were good points to argue was improper. The Apex Court in "Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. Roshan Lal Saini" 2008 AIR SCW 7982, held that the order of conviction can not be suspended without ascribing reasons which of-course should be weighty and convincing. In "State of Haryana Vs. Hasmat" 2004(6) SCC 175, the Apex Court held that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. It is well settled that 4 ordinarily in cases where the conviction is for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellate Court would be extremely slow in suspending the order of conviction. The sentence may be suspended so as to ensure that liberty to such convicted person is not curtailed because the appeal may be heard after a considerable delay and detention of such convicted person for a longer period may not be warranted. Considering the fact that the applicant has been convicted by the trial Court, for alleged offence of demanding of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, I am not inclined to suspend the order of conviction. 5. In the result, the application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp267809