STATE OF TAMIL NADU

A. JAGANATHAN

JULY 15, 1996

[FAJZAN UDDIN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

Code of Climinal Procedure, 1973: Sections 389(1) and 482.

Appellate Court--Power lo suspend conviction and senlencelevant C factors f01~T1ifling malle1~ should not be taken into account-Damage caused to accused could not be undone if he succeeds in appeql or revision-In such a case discretion to suspend sentence and conviction should be cxercise~Acwsed public sC1vants---Conviction under sectio11s 392, 218 and 466 !PC as well as Preve11lio11 of Comtplion Act-Sentence---Revision- Suspension of sentence and conviction during the pendency of revision-High D Court order--Ground of loss of stipends to accused-Moral co11duct of accused persons not taken into account-Held in such circun1stances High

Cowt should not have exercised its discretio11G1y power--Order to the extent of suspensio11 of co11viction set aside-Order with regard lo suspensio11 of sente11ce upheld.

E Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 513, held inapplicable.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 725-72}1, of 1996.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.95, 19.10.95 and 18.10.95 of the Madras High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 2890/95 3677/95, 3517/95 and 3516/95 in Crl.R.C. No. 23/94, Crl.A. No. 585/95, 530/94 and 589/93.

S. Siva Subramanian, K.V. Venkataraman, V. Krishnamurthy, R.

Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, T. Raja and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the G appearing Parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

H Counsel for parties are heard. 572

STATI.ov. AJAGANATHAN 573

The respondents in these four appeals are the Government A employees. All the four were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Erode for various criminal offences and sentenced to undergo various sentences.

The said conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Erode. The respondents then approached the High Court in Criminal Revision accompanied with an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of convictions as well as the sentences. The High Court after considering the ambit and scope of the provisions contained in Sections 374 and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provisions of Law and relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, [1995] 2 S.C.C. 513, took the view that for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the appellate Court, the conviction or order of sentence can be suspended during the pendency of the same. The High Court also took the view that

the power of the appellate Court or the High Court to suspend the conviction or sentence is always inherent and can be exercised at any stage, subject to the condition that the appellate Court should be approached and D satisfied with the reasonings to be recorded in writing and further, if any one wants to stop the proceedings which have been initiated for dis- . qualification or removal from service or reduction in rank in respect of the public servant one has to look into the moral conduct very much involved in such a case and only when the Court is satisfied with such conduct, then E the remedy provided under different statute cannot at all be stopped. After . taking the aforesaid view and on consideration of the fact that the respondents will loose the meagre stipend, if the prayer for suspending the conviction during the pendency of the revisions is not granted, passed the impugned orders suspending the conviction as well as the seniences awarded to the respondents. It is against these orders that the State has filed these appeals. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for

the state is that the High Court has passed the impugned orders relying on the decision in Rama Narang's case (supra) wherein this Court took the view that in appropriate cases the conviction and sentences can be suspended in exercise of powers under Section 462 .Cr.P.C. After going G through the decision referred to above and the facts of the present case we find that the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the cases before us. In Rama Narang's case (supra) the conviction and sentences both were suspended on the reasoning that if the conviction and sentences are not suspended the damage would be caused which could not H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A be un-done if ultimately the revision of the appellants of that case was allowed. But in the present case, we find that in the event the revicions against their conviction and sentences are allowed by the High Court the damage, if any, caused to the respondents with regard to payment of stipend etc. can well be revived and made good to the respondents. If such B trifling matters are taken into co11sideration, we think, then every conviction will have to be suspended pending appeal or revision involving the slightest disadvantage to a convict. That being so the facts of the decision relied on have no application to the present case. This apart, the High Court though made an observation but did not consider at all the moral conduct of the respondents inasmuch as respondent Jaganathan who was the Police ln- C speetor attached to Erode Police Station has been convicted under Sections 392, 218 and 466 !PC, while the other respondents who are also public servants have been convicted under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. In such a case the discretionary power lo suspend the conviction either under Sectiom 389(1) or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not have D been exercised. The orders impugned thus cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above the impugned orders are set aside to the extent of suspension of conviction. The order with regard to the suspension of sentences, however, is maintained. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A.

Appeals disposed of.