2013 Supreme(Raj) 2077

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Salman Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 718 of 2013 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905 of 2007.
Decided On : 12-11-2013

The High Court has the power to suspend the execution of any sentence or order passed by an inferior criminal court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 - SECTION 51 - CONVICTION - SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION ORDER - APPLICANT, A FILM ACTOR, CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 51 OF THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 - SENTENCE SUSPENDED BY HIGH COURT - SUBSEQUENTLY, CONDITION IMPOSED RESTRICTING APPLICANT FROM LEAVING COUNTRY WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF COURT - SAID CONDITION LATER DELETED - APPLICANT'S VISA REJECTED BY UK BORDER AGENCY DUE TO CONVICTION - APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION ORDER - HELD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION ORDER JUSTIFIED - APPLICATION ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Applicant, a film actor, was convicted under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The conviction was upheld by the appellate court. The High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the applicant under Section 391(1) of the Cr.P.C. Later, the condition restricting the applicant from leaving the country without prior permission of the court was deleted. However, the applicant's visa for travelling to the United Kingdom was rejected by the UK Border Agency on the ground that the applicant was under the criteria set out in paragraph 320(2) of HC395, which states that an applicant who has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 4 years is not eligible for a visa. The applicant filed an application for suspension of the conviction order.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the application for suspension of the conviction order was maintainable under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court and to suspend the execution of any sentence or order. The court further held that the applicant had not suppressed the purpose for which he was seeking the suspension of conviction, and that he had come to the court with clean hands. The court also noted that the applicant had always complied with the conditions imposed upon him, and that he was not a public servant nor had he been convicted for any corruption charges.

Issues: 1. Whether the application for suspension of the conviction order was maintainable under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the applicant had suppressed the purpose for which he was seeking the suspension of conviction? 3. Whether the applicant had always complied with the conditions imposed upon him? 4. Whether the applicant was a public servant or had been convicted for any corruption charges?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court and to suspend the execution of any sentence or order. The power to stay the conviction can be exercised even under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant had not suppressed the purpose for which he was seeking the suspension of conviction. He had come to the court with clean hands and had very fairly pointed out that he had applied for a UK High Commission for a Visa, which was rejected on the ground that he had been convicted of an offence for which he had been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 4 years. 3. The applicant had always complied with the conditions imposed upon him. He had never absconded and had always made himself available as and when required by the court except when exempted. He had not violated any of the conditions imposed by any Court. 4. The applicant was not a public servant nor had he been convicted for any corruption charges.

Final Decision: The application for suspension of the conviction order was allowed. The order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, and the order of the Sessions Judge upholding the conviction were not to be executed during the pendency of the revision petition.