1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 820 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2007 Chandrakant N. Pagar .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms. Vishranti Navale for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI , J. DATED : 10th December, 2009. P.C. : 1. After conviction for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the statutory appeal came to be filed. It came to be admitted. The applicant came to be released on bail since he was still in service and would not abscond. Thereafter proceeding under a departmental enquiry came to be initiated. The applicant came to be dismissed as he was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The applicant wants the conviction itself suspended. 2 3. The applicant has made out his case on the ground that he is 52 years old, has 7-8 years of service left, was convicted for accepting bribe of negligible amount of Rs.500/- which he demanded. He has been in service since 1985 and has no antecedents, (which presumably shows that he has not taken bribe earlier). If any of these reasons is accepted every conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act would be per se required to be stayed or suspended pending the statutory appeal. The act of such suspension would be completely contrary to the requirement of the criminal prosecution to prevent and contend the malaise of corruption which has permeated every fabric of our country. It would frustrate justice and put a premium on delay. It cannot be allowed and must be rejected. 4. It has been the case of the accused that there is a small savings scheme under which each government employee was directed to request all persons to invest, which the complainant sought to do. If that was the complainant’s act, the complainant should have shown the documentation of the scheme that was entered into. He could not have taken the amount (which came to be recovered from him) before he caused the complainant to fill up 3 the required form and enter into the contract. 5. The contention in this case that his defence is admitted by the prosecution is completely misconceived. The prosecution has admitted the fact that the government does have a Small Savings Scheme. The prosecution has not admitted that the accused acted at the time of the trap under any such scheme. 6. In a trap laid by the prosecution he has been caught taking bribe of Rs.250/- which was recovered from him. 7. The defence of the accused of investment in the Small Savings Scheme has been considered by the trial Judge. It was also considered in the departmental inquiry so also the prosecution case of trap. The defence of the accused is seen to be moonshine. The conviction cannot be stayed. 8. The application stands rejected. (R. S. DALVI, J.)