( 1 ) BY way of this application filed under Section 374 read with Section 389 of Cr. P. C, the accused appellants Om Prakash and yadram Yadav have implored to stay the finding of conviction awarded to them by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28th April, 2009 till the disposal of the appeal.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the accused appellants as also the learned pp appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned judgment and the relevant provisions of law.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants canvassed that both the accused appellants are public servants. The appellant Om Prakash is an employee of rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and the second appellant Yadram yadav is a school teacher. Appellant Om Prakash, pursuant to conviction vide impugned judgment, has been dismissed from service, whereas the appellant yadram Yadav has been placed under suspension. The conviction of these appellants in the offence under Section 308 of India Penal Code has become disqualification, hence in the interest of justice, the conviction awarded to the appellants be stayed, so that they may not be put to lose their employment and exposed to untold hardship and starvation. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has cited two judgments passed in the case of Navjot singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 = RLW 2007 (3) SC 2264 and Kanhaiya vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 (3)WLC Page 411.

( 4 ) E contra, learned PP has opposed the stay of conviction and contended that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 389 of Cr. P. C. do not posit the stay of conviction and submits that the application deserves to be dismissed outrightly.

( 5 ) HAVING reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned judgment and relevant provisions of law, it is noticed that the accused appellants along-with 12 co-accused persons were indicted initially for the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 307 readwith Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of trial, the accused appellants along-with other co-accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 149, 148 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment of one year. Section 389 (1) of Crpc envisages thus:

"389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail- (l) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond:

( 6 ) SECTION 389 of Crpc postulates that pending the appeal, the sentence may be suspended. Question, whether conviction itself may be suspended, has been raised often before the Courts.

( 7 ) ONE line of the argument is that suspension of conviction is covered by the expression "order appealed against" in sub-section (1) of Section 389 of crpc. Another argument in favour of the power to suspend the conviction is that the expression "order appealed against" should be construed liberally to include suspension of conviction in it. The question with regard to suspension of conviction emerged before the Hon'ble Apex Court many a times.

( 8 ) IN the case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang reported in (1995) 2 scc 513, the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

"under the provisions of the Code to which we have already referred there are two stages in a criminal trial before a Sessions Court, the stage up to the recording of a conviction and the stage post-conviction up to the imposition of sentence. A judgment becomes complete after both these stages are covered under Section 374 (2) of the Code any person convicte