A stay of conviction may be granted if the consequences significantly affect the accused's career, despite the nature of the offenses.

ORDER

1. Matter comes up on an application seeking stay of the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2019 passed against the accused-appellant.

2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that an application for suspension of sentence was allowed by the Court on 19.08.2019. However, now on the basis of the conviction, State has passed the order dated 18.02.2021, dismissing the appellant from the service. It is also contended that the appellant married the complainant on 02.11.2006 and a child was born out of the wed-lock in the year 2008. The Court below has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. as well as for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. It is argued that if the conviction is for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. cannot be sustained and vice-versa.

3. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 'Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan' 2013 SCC Online Raj 450., 'Mahmood Khan vs. State of Rajasthan' (S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.6932/2017 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.62/2009), 'Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors.' (1995) 2 SCC 513, 'Avinash vs. State of Rajasthan' (S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.3138/2020 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2326/2019), 'Subhash Kholiya vs. State of Rajasthan' (S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.1602/2017 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.317/2017), ''Bhavya Raj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan' (S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.4681/2018 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1508/2016) and 'Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.381/2017 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1276/2016).

4. It is argued that appellant is a Doctor who was serving the State and because of the conviction order, his service has been dismissed. It is also contended that if the consequences of conviction are made known to the Court, the Court is empowered to stay the conviction order. Reliance has been place on 'Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr.' (2007) 2 SCC 574,

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Apex Court in 'Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr.' (supra) observed that granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of the case, but if the consequences of conviction are made known to the Court, the Court is empowered to stay the conviction order.

7. In 'Avinash vs. State of Rajasthan' (supra) the employee was dismissed from the service on account of his conviction. Co- ordinate Bench placing reliance on 'Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors.' (supra) held that while granting a stay of suspension of the order of conviction, Court must examine the pros and cons and if it feels satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such an order, it may do so. Co-ordinate Bench in that case stayed the order of conviction.

8. In 'Subhash Kholiya vs. State of Rajasthan' (supra) applicant prayed that he would be removed from the service and will have an adverse effect on his service, if the conviction is not stayed. This Court stayed the conviction order.

9. The accused appellant in this case has served the Government for so many years. His sentence has been suspended by the Court. The consequences of not suspending the conviction order would have serious effect on his career. He has been dismissed from his service vide order dated 18.02.2021.

10. Considering the above, I deem it proper to stay the conviction order.

11. Consequently, it is directed that the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.63/2012 (35/2009) State vs. Nathuram, remain stayed till pendency of the appeal.

12. Stay application is disposed of.