1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1469/2008 Nathuji s/o Namdeorao Naukarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra ....................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ....................................................................................................................... Shri R.N.Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 24/04/2008. Heard Shri R.N.Khare, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Mandpe, learned APP for respondent. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant challenges the order dated 04/04/08 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No.27/08 by which the application filed by the applicant seeking suspension of conviction has been rejected. The applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and one year 2 respectively and also ordered to pay fine by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha in Summary Criminal Case No.7534/05. The applicant has preferred an application seeking suspension of conviction. The Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha by the impugned order has dismissed the application on the ground that conviction of an accused cannot be suspended under Section 389 of Cr. P. C. Mr. Khare, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant was serving in Maharashtra State Electricity Board as a Wireman and since he was likely to loose his job on the ground of his conviction, the application for suspension of conviction was filed before the Appellate Court. Mr.Khare further submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have granted the application since such an application was maintainable and considering that the applicant was likely to loose his job, the Appellate Court ought to have granted relief in favour of the applicant, more particularly, having regard to the fact that the applicant had 3 no criminal record. He further submitted that the finding of the Appellate Court that conviction cannot be suspended is patently unsustainable. Per contra, learned APP for respondent submitted that although the Appellate Court can suspend the conviction, the applicant has not made out any case for suspension of conviction. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned A. P. P. for respondent, I find no merit in the present application. No doubt, the finding of the lower Appellate Court that conviction of an accused cannot be suspended by Appellate Court is patently unsustainable, being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, insofar as prayer of the applicant is concerned, in my considered opinion, having regard to the nature of the conviction, the applicant has not been able to make out any exceptional case for suspension of conviction. Ordinarily, it is the sentence which is suspended and not the conviction by 4 the Appellate Court. However, there is power in the Appellate Court to grant suspension of conviction in a appropriate case if the accused is able to make out an exceptional case. In the present case, the applicant has not been able to make out any such case and therefore, the prayer of the applicant for suspension of the conviction was rightly rejected. Insofar as the Judgment relied upon by the applicant in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and others : (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513 is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the applicant. The application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE VMC