Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Inderjit Singh, J.
Pritpal Kaur – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 16307 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. S-1991-SB of 2015
Decided On : 15-02-2017
For the Appellant :Navkiran Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Deep Singh, Assistant Advocate General
The potential irreparable loss to a government employee due to conviction and its impact on employment can be considered in deciding whether to suspend the conviction during the appeal.
Headnote:
Section 389 - Suspension of Conviction - Sections 148, 452, 353, 186, 225, 355, 440 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - The court suspended the conviction of the applicant/appellant No.2, Pawan Sandhu, during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The court referred to various judgments and legal provisions to support its decision, highlighting the impact of the conviction on the applicant's employment and the potential irreparable loss if the conviction was not stayed.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants/appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The main grounds were the reliance on insufficient and improbable evidence by the trial court and the false implication of the appellant No.2 in the case. The appellant No.2, a government employee, faced potential dismissal from service due to the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the application and stayed/suspended the conviction of the appellant No.2 during the pendency of the appeal, considering the potential irreparable loss to the appellant if the conviction was not stayed.
Issues: Reliance on insufficient evidence, false implication, potential dismissal from service, and irreparable loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents and the impact of the conviction on the appellant's employment to support the decision to suspend the conviction during the appeal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and suspended the conviction of the appellant No.2 during the pendency of the appeal.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of conviction of applicants/appellants No.2 and 3, namely, Pawan Sandhu and Sandeep Sandhu, during the pendency of the criminal appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 does not press this application qua applicant/appellant No.3-Sandeep Sandhu and prays that the same may be dismissed qua him. Ordered accordingly. The application qua Sandeep Sandhu-applicant is dismissed as not pressed.
3. It has been stated in the application that the conviction of the applicant/appellant No.2 has arisen from a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.4.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), convicting the applicant/appellant No. 2 for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 353, 186, 225, 355 and 440 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offences under Sections 452 and 440 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act on each count. For other offences i.e. under Sections 148, 353, 186, 225, 355 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicants-appellants filed an appeal which has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 4.5.2015/6.5.2016. Their sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by order passed by this Court on 28.7.2015.
4. It has been further stated that the main grounds taken by the applicant/appellant No.2 in the present application/appeal are that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon the insufficient and improbable evidence of the prosecution and has gravely erred in convicting the applicant/appellant No.2 for the above mentioned offences. It has also been mentioned that the present applicant/appellant No.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case and it has been proved by the appellants through the defence version that appellant No.3 Sandeep Sandhu, when in custody of the Police, fell unconscious and the Police officials failed to provide medical care to him, the family of Sandeep Sandhu i.e. his father appellant No.2 and mother appellant No.1 and other friends visited the Police Station to convince the Police to provide him proper medical care, but the Police instead threw appellant No.3 outside the Police Station in an unconscious state and when the family members reacted to this, the Police in annoyance and retaliation falsely implicated the family members and the friends in the present case. The motive introduced by the prosecution is neither probable nor plausible. It has been mentioned that the applicant/appellant No. 2 Pawan Sandhu is working as a Driver in the Local Audit, Department of Haryana and has an unblemished service record of 30 years and is due for retirement on 31.3.2017. It has been mentioned that it is a case where the Police failed to provide medical care to appellant No.3-Sandeep Sandhu for more than 6 hours and violated the provisions of Section 54 Cr.P.C. and the record of the case clearly proves the said fact, the conviction being not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. In case the sentence of conviction is not stayed the applicant/appellant No.2 would loose his job and irreparable loss will be caused to him, since there are good chances for his acquittal of the charges before this Court. It has been mentioned that applicant/appellant No.2 is sole bread earner of his family. It has been mentioned that applicant/appellant No.2 will suffer irreparable loss if his conviction is not stayed during the pendency of the appeal. His sentence of impriso
