important point
An order of suspension of conviction should not be readily granted.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. — Leave granted.

2.Respondent is a public servant. He was proceeded against in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to one and a half years (18 months) rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) was also imposed upon him by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. He preferred an appeal thereagainst marked as Criminal Appeal No. 1022-SB/04. In the said appeal, an application was filed by the respondent for suspending of conviction purported to be under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By reason of the Order dated 11.1.2005, learned Judge of the Special Court allowed the said application holding;

“I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant-appellant Deepak Mattu and Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent on an application moved under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of conviction recorded under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence of the appellant has already been suspended. He is working as Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board. It is argued that if his conviction is not suspended, he may have to face dismissal from service. Three flaws in the impugned judgment have been pointed out. Firstly, that shadow witness has not been examined; secondly, that the alleged demand was of Rs. 2000/- and this bribe money was allegedly paid but at the time of recovery, only an amount of Rs. 1900/- was recovered; and thirdly, there is no corroboration to the demand in as much as the complaint alone proved the same and the shadow witness in whose presence it was made has not been examined. It will take a long time to decide the appeal. There are fairly good points to argue. This application is allowed and the conviction of the appellant is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.”

3.An application was filed by the appellant herein for vacation of stay of conviction granted to him by reason of the said order with a prayer to recall the same, whereby the Court’s attention was drawn to a judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh,1 [(2001) 6 SCC 584]. By reason of the impugned judgment while the Court accepted that an order suspending the conviction could be allowed only in a very exceptional case, dismissed the application of stay holding;

“The present petition is not maintainable. Order dated 11.1.2005 can neither be reviewed nor recalled. It was passed in the presence of the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who represented the respondent-State. The merits of the case were considered. It was considered that it will take a long time to decide the appeal and there are fairly good points to be argued. Hence, application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the conviction of the appellant recorded under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was suspended during pendency of appeal. There is no blanket bar imposed on the Appellate Court to grant stay of conviction in corruption cases. After going through the ‘grounds of appeal’ and the contents of the application moved under Section 389 Cr.P.C., it was considered that it was an exceptional case. Hence, the conviction was stayed during pendency of the appeal. Sentenced imposed on the appellant had already been stayed. Now, there exists no reason, either for vacation of the order dated 11.1.2005 or to review/recall the same.”

4.Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court being aware of the decisions of this Court holding that ordinarily the suspension of conviction should not be granted, must be held to have committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would submit that the respondent being a government servant and he having been convicted only for a period of one and a half years, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any