Important Point - The person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed.

1. This is an application by convict accused no.2 for suspension of conviction recorded against him in Special Case No.31 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 14th March 2016 by the learned Special Judge, Pune. In the alternative, it is prayed that the criminal appeal be listed for final hearing.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant application are thus :

On 17th September 2014, Vijay Chavan lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pune, alleging that parents of Manohar Yadav died and therefore he applied for mutation of Shop Block No.80 owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA hereinafter) in his favour, being legal heir of deceased owner. As his work of mutation was not being done by the officials of the Housing Board, as per the complaint of Vijay Chavan, Manohar Yadav had authorized him to take up necessary action and proceedings for mutation of the shop block. He alleged that when he approached the Pune Housing Board, accused no.1 Jogindarsingh Rajput, Estate Manager, and accused no.2 i.e. the present applicant Pradeep Kale, Assistant Clerk, had demanded amount of Rs.2,000/and Rs.4500/respectively from him for doing that work of mutation. According to the prosecution case, verification of this demand was conducted by availing services of PW2 Bhausaheb Detake – a shadow panch. After verification of demand, a trap was laid on 19th September 2014 and during the course of that trap, according to the prosecution case, accused no.1 Jogindarsingh Rajput and accused no.2 Pradeep Kale i.e. the present applicant, came to be apprehended on accepting illegal gratification from complainant Vijay Chavan. This resulted in lodging the FIR and subsequent prosecution and ultimately by the judgment and order dated 14th March 2016, the learned Special Judge, Pune, was pleased to convict both accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 4 years respectively on each count apart from imposition of some fine.

3. Heard Shri Deshmukh, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant / accused no.2. He vehemently argued that there is no bar for suspending conviction and it can be done by demonstrating exceptional circumstances. In his submission, non-availability of legal evidence to convict an accused amounts to an exceptional circumstance and for this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.C.Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584. In submission of the learned advocate for the applicant / accused no.2, there is no evidence of demand and verification of demand. As such, for want of evidence, accused persons ought not to have been convicted and this amounts to an exceptional circumstance warranting stay of the conviction. It is further argued that heir of the deceased owners of the shop block namely Manohar Yadav did not step into the witness box to corroborate version of the complainant as well as panch witness. Consent / authority letter allegedly issued by Manohar Yadav in favour of complainant Vijay Chavan was not finding its place with papers of investigation and the same was not before the Sanctioning Authority while granting sanction. This letter came to be produced on record while the complainant was in the witness box and the same came to be exhibited. This goes to show that the same was not a part of the record of the Housing Board, causing loss of substratum of the case of prosecution against accused persons.

4. It is further urged that it was on 5th September 2014 that complainant Vijay Chavan lodged complaint with the ACB. The authority letter is dated 16th September 2014. The application by legal heir Manohar Yadav was dated 5th September 2014. The complaint to the ACB was on 17th September 2014. When the application was already moved to the Housing Board by legal h