The court may stay a conviction pending appeal if the applicant demonstrates strong chances of success and potential irreparable harm, particularly considering their public status.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, Sri Nadeem Murtaza and Sri Mohit Singh Advocates, the learned Counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, the learned Government Advocate for the State, Sri Vijay Dixit and Sri Devam Shukla Advocates, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by a Sales Tax Officer against the applicant and 10-12 unnamed persons on 06.10.1991 alleging that when the informant was performing his duties in his office, the applicant and the other accused persons entered his office and beaten him up and that some other businessmen had abused and threatened him as to why the informant used to intercept the vehicles loaded with goods. The informant stated that other Sales Tax Officers present in the Sales Tax Office came to the spot due to which the accused persons ran away while threatening that in case any other vehicle is intercepted, the informant will be killed. The informant further alleged that earlier also, the accused persons had abused another Sales Tax Officer Sri D.C. Chaturvedi, had broken some chairs kept in the office and had threatened the officers.

3. In furtherance of the aforesaid F.I.R. a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant only and he alone was tried for commission of offences under Sections 332, 504 and 506 IPC and he has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 332 and 506 IPC by means of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11 Lucknow. The applicant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years for each of the offences and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 332 IPC and Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 506 IPC.

4. The applicant has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2023 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow, challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.02.2023. He filed an application praying for staying the conviction and sentence during pendency of the appeal, as also an application for his release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

5. The appeal has been admitted by means of the order dated 01.03.2023 and the execution of the sentence has been suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to the condition that the appellant deposits entire amount of penalty within a period of 15 days and the applicant has been enlarged on bail.

6. The applicant filed an application for correction/modification of the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the appellate Court stating that the order mentions stay of sentence only and stay of conviction was omitted from being transcribed and it should also be stayed.

7. On 28.08.2023, the Sessions Judge, Lucknow passed an order rejecting the application for stay of conviction and the application for correction also.

8. After rejection of the aforesaid application filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. the applicant has approached this Court by filing instant application under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2023 (Banwari Lal Kanchhal vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Criminal Case No. 2824/2022 (CNR No. UPLK04-006240-2022) (State vs. Banwari Lal Kanchhal) arising out of Case Crime No. 1039/1991, under Sections 332, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and stay the order of conviction dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No. 27. Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 2824/2022 (CNR No. UPLK04-006240-2022) (State vs. Banwari Lal Kanchhal) arising out of