Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Sajjay S/o. Sivadasan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.77/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. He was convicted for offences underSection 498A and 406, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code in the said Calendar Case.
2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam vide C.R.A No.172/2024. He also preferred Crl.M.P No.1547/2024 seeking suspension of the sentence and also suspension of the order of conviction, rather the judgment of conviction, to be more precise.
3. The reason espoused for seeking suspension of the judgment of conviction is the possibility of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a Plus Two teacher in a Government school, which would result in break in his service. By virtue of the impugned Annexure-A2 Order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed Crl.M.P No.1547/2024 in part, suspending the order of sentence, but refusing to do so, insofar as the judgment of conviction is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance upon K.C.Sareen v. CBI [ (2001) 6 SCC 584 ] and also Ajithkumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ 2019 (1) KHC 149 ] in arriving at the said conclusion.
4. Heard
Suspension of a conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is exceptional, requiring demonstration of irreversible consequences, which was not established in this case.
Suspension of conviction in criminal cases, especially for corruption, is only permissible in exceptional circumstances where irreversible harm can be shown.
Public Servant - Illegal gratification – Suspension of sentence - Power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of Code, its exercise should be....
The distinction between suspension of sentence and stay of conviction is critical; the latter requires exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious offences.
A suspended conviction renders the associated guilt non-operative, preventing dismissal from service based on that conviction.
A stay of conviction may be granted if the consequences significantly affect the accused's career, despite the nature of the offenses.
The High Court affirmed the power to suspend conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to prevent employment loss, emphasizing the need to consider the consequences of conviction.
The appellate court has the authority to suspend a conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., especially when the conviction impacts employment.
Conviction may be stayed if it leads to significant disqualification consequences, protecting the appellant's rights pending appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
