Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application for stay of conviction are that accused-applicant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month vide judgment and order dated 23.5.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 8/2011 by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Against the impugned judgment and order, the appellant filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 365/2013 before this Court and the sentence awarded by the trial Court was suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 29.5.2013 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 542/2013. In this case it has been found by the trial Court that the appellant inflicted injuries to the father of the complainant which resulted in his death.

2. The present application has been filed on the premises that one Smt. Pushpa Yadav filed an application before Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "RSRTC"), Jaipur to the effect that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid case and, therefore, departmental action may be taken against him. On the basis of the aforesaid application, a letter dated 12.7.2013 has been written by the Deputy Managing Director, (Administration), RSRTC, Jaipur to the Chief Manager, RSRTC Vaishali Nagar Aagar to take necessary action against the appellant. Now, the appellant apprehends that his services may be terminated on the ground of his conviction in the aforesaid case.

3. In support of the application, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:-

(1) This High Court in many identical cases has been pleased to stay the conviction of the accused and, therefore, on the ground of parity and in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India it is in the interest of justice to stay the conviction of the appellant also.

(2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: AIR 2007 SC 1003 = RLW 2007(3) SC 2264 was pleased to stay the conviction of the accused and the facts of the present case and of the aforesaid case are almost similar and, therefore, it is in the interest of justice to stay the conviction of the present appellant also.

(3) Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that several criminal appeals are pending for hearing and there is no likelihood of their early hearing. The appeal filed by the appellant also unlikely to be heard in near future and, therefore, if the conviction is not stayed, the very purpose of filing of the appeal will be frustrated and he will suffer irreparable loss if his services are terminated.

(4) If services of the appellant are terminated, he will be without any job and source of earning. The appellant will face acute problem to look after himself and members of his family without any source of livelihood. There is no other earning member in the family except the appellant.

(5) The evidence available on record clearly shows that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is every livelihood that his appeal will be allowed on merit.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Ors. reported in JT 1995(1) SC 515, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras vs. S. Nagoor Meera reported in AIR 1995 SC 1364, Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai vs. Bhupeen Champak Lal Dalal & Anr. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1096, Ravikant S.Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported in JT 2006(10) SC 578 and Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1003 = RLW 2007(3) SC 2264.

5. Apart from aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon various orders passed by different Benches of thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document