22. cr appa 359­10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 359 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 875 OF 2008 Eknath Piraji Bhosale .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Milind Sawant for the Applicants Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted in Special Case No. 9 of 2005 by learned Special Judge, Satara under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal preferred by him against the said order is admitted and it is pending before this Court. The applicant has already been granted bail by this Court. Though, his sentence has been suspended, now, the applicant is praying for suspension of conviction. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs CBI, Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 held that when 1 22. cr appa 359­10.doc conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant, the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. Similar view is taken in the cases of Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Adm) Vs S. Nagoor Meera reported in (1995)3 SCC 377 and State of T.N. Vs A. Jaganathan reported in (1996)5 SCC 329. Thus, in view of the above decisions, I am not inclined to entertain the present application for suspension of conviction. Hence, the prayer is rejected. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2008 be placed on final hearing board as soon as paper book is ready. 5. Application disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 2 22. cr appa 359­10.doc 3