1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION N O.1566/2008. In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2007. Sunil Gayaprasad Mishra, aged about 39 years, Occu: Service, R/o 11 Mire Layout, Umrer Road, Nagpur. ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through the Sitabuldi Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri R.M.Daga, Adv. for the applicant/appellant. Shri R.P.Joshi, Special Prosecutor for the State. CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 3rd July, 2008. 1. This is a second application for suspension of order of conviction recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. 2. The appellant/accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to total 2 Twelve and half years imprisonment. It is alleged that in conspiracy with others as a student appearing for the examination, he dishonestly caused the University record to be tampered and forged. The appellant, it appears, is running an institute in subject of Mass Communication and is also a Lecturer. 3. As said earlier, his first application for suspension of order of conviction was rejected by the court. The court has, however, suspended the sentence. The material question is whether a second application for suspension of conviction is maintenable. To my mind, second application for suspension of conviction is not maintenable and the only recourse available to the accused/ applicant is to approach the higher court against the order. If such an application is entertained, that would certainly amount to reviewing the order. There could no doubt be successive applications for bail under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with a prayer for suspension of sentence. The court is bound to entertain any number of applications for bail if at all there is a change in the circumstances favourable to the accused. If there is no change, the court would reject the second application. Such successive bail applications are entertained because the liberty of a person is in question. In considering the question of suspension of conviction, the court is not required to consider the liberty of any person. 3 The considerations for grant of bail and suspension of conviction are not the same and totally different considerations exist for suspension of conviction. The Supreme Court has time and again observed that in a rare case alone the conviction may be suspended. Reference may be made to following decisions of the Supreme Court. 1) (2001)6 SCC 584 (K.C.Sareen ..Vs.. CBI) 2) (2003)12 SCC 434 (Union of India ..V.. Atar Singh). 3) (2003)12 SCC 432 (State of Mah. ..vs.. Gajanan & Anr.) If the ratio of these decisions is taken into account, it is obvious that the considerations are different. 4. While deciding the first application, this court has considered the question as to whether this is an exceptional case and whether any irreversible consequences would follow, and has answered the question in the negative. In fact, therefore, this question having been answered in the negative once, there is no need to reconsider it. 5. Shri R.M.Daga, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, submits that there is change in the circumstances in as much as Makhanlal Chaturvedi University has issued a letter of withdrawal of affiliation of 4 the appellant is institute and the Nagpur University has also given notice to withdraw the approval granted by it to the appointment of appellant as a Lecturer. There is no doubt that such letters are issued. Even if both actions are taken by the concerned institute, the consequences cannot be said to be irreversible. If the appellant is honourably acquitted, he can certainly say that the withdrawal of the approval should be revoked. As on today he is convicted for the offences of forgery and fabrication of record and conspiracy. The offences are of serious nature and particularly when the appellant claims to be a Lecturer and also head of the Educational Institution. In the circumstances, I find that no indulgence needs to be shown in such case. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE. chute