The court emphasized that its concern was the decision of the criminal appeal and not the appellant's employment consequences, and therefore, the operation of the judgment was not suspended.

S.N. Saxena

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant Raj Kumar.

2. Appellant, Raj Kumar, has moved this application for getting suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the Special Judge, (Decoity Affected Areas) Banda in Special trial No. 52 of 1987, State v. Yogendra Kumar and others. He has further prayed that the aforesaid judgment and order may be kept in abeyance pending the decision of the criminal appeal.

It may be mentioned that the appellant/applicant, Raj Kumar, along with three others was convicted and sentenced under Section 394, IPC in Special Trial No. 52 of 1987 on 17th February 1989. The accused persons preferred a common appeal before this court which was admItted on 28-2-1989. This Court, the same day, granted bail to all the four appellants on each of them furnishing two sureties and personal bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (D.A.A.) Banda. It has now been contended for Raj Kumar that he is a Government servant and on the basis of his aforesaid conviction and sentence, his department is taking recourse to proceedings for his dismissal, removal or termination from service. He therefore, has prayed for getting suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and order.

3. It may be mentioned that Raj Kumar along with three others was found guilty of having committed robbery of Rs. 12500/- possessed by complainant, Lal Bihari, on 4-10-1986 at about 3.00 p. m. The prosecution had been able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as a result of which he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The offence committed by him involved moral turpitude. IT appears from the impugned judgment that the complainant was slapped and a shot was also fired upon him during the occurrence which, however, had not hit him. In my opinion, in such a case no lenient view can be taken in favour of the appellant. His continuance or otherwise in service was not the concern of this Court so far as the decision of the criminal appeal was concerned. If he ultimately succeeded and got acquitted honourably, he naturally will get the arrears of salary etc. IT was not for this court to create ground for him for continuance in service during the pendency off his criminal appeal. The application was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. The application is hereby dismissed.

Application dismissed.