ORDER:

Heard arguments of Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel representing on behalf of Sri Venugopala Rao Veerla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

2. This Criminal Revision Case has arisen in the following circumstances:

As against A.1 to A.5 in C.C.No.197 of 2014 prosecution was initiated before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli. Case against A.5 was quashed by a learned Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.4225 of 2015. Therefore, further proceedings took place as against A.1 to A.4. Charges under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed. After due trial learned trial Court acquitted A.2, A.3 and A.4 of all the charges. Learned trial Court found A.1 not guilty for the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly acquitted him. However, it found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and by judgment dated 27.08.2024 it convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 before learned Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The said appeal is pending. The convict filed Crl.M.P.No.369 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2024 under Section 389(1) Crl.P.C. praying for suspension of his conviction as well as suspension of execution of sentence. After due notice to the State and after hearing the learned counsel for appellant-convict and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned appellate Court by order dated 06.09.2024 allowed the petition in part and suspended the execution of substantive sentence and ordered for release of convict on bail. However, it declined to suspend or stay the conviction. It mentioned various reasons in passing the said order and stated that power conferred on the appellate Court under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is confined to suspension of execution of sentence and District Judiciary did not have power to suspend the conviction and mentioned that powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure would not be exercised by the District Judiciary. It was for those reasons it declined to grant the relief of suspension or stay of conviction.

4. It is in the above referred circumstances, the convict preferred this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside that part of the impugned order of the appellate Court which refused to grant stay or suspension of conviction and prays this Court to grant the said relief of suspension or stay of conviction. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel cited:

1. Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang1

2. Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali2

3. Chanda Ram Shivsharan v. The State of Maharashtra3

1(1995) 2 SCC 513 2(2007) 1 SCC 673

3Order dated 09.08.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay

in I.A.No.1647 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.173 of 2022

5. This Court has considered the entire material that is placed on record and the rulings cited. The following aspects are to be stated:

The revision petitioner is an Inspector of Police. In terms of Rule 9 sub clause (16) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and G.O.Rt.No.2752 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 11.12.2017, steps have been initiated on 05.09.2024 for dismissal of the revision petitioner from service within two months from the date of conviction judgment of the learned trial Court. These facts are not in dispute. Thus, in the event of not suspending the conviction or not staying the order of conviction, it would result in dismissal of the revision petitioner from service. In all the above referred rulings, principles have been laid down stating that person seeking stay or suspension of conviction should invite the