Suspending a conviction requires demonstrating exceptional circumstances and potential consequences of failing to do so.

1. In Criminal Revision Application Stamp No.6793/2022 applicant accused stand convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A , 186 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code . He assailed the said judgment of conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur and moved two applications; in application at Exh.-5 he prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail being preferred under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and vide application at Exh.-6 he prayed for grant of stay to the conviction as per Section 386 read with Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code .

2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by an order dated 18.7.2022 allowed the application at Exh.-5 and suspended the execution of the sentence and judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, till final disposal of the appeal. However, application filed at Exh.-6 requesting for grant of stay to the conviction came to be rejected.

This rejection has constrained the applicant to file the revision application, wherein he seeks following reliefs :

1A. Grant stay to the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.6.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Nagpur during pendency of the Appeal filed before the District Judge, Nagpur bearing Criminal Appeal No.155/2022.

2. Quash and set aside the order dated 18.7.2022 passed below Exhibit-6 in Criminal Appeal No.155/2022 to the extent of rejecting the prayer of grant of stay to the conviction in Regular Criminal Case No.642/2020.”

3. In support of the application I have heard Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant, who is opposed by Mr. V.A. Thakare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Relying upon the settled position of law flowing through the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, Mr. Mohgaonkar, would submit that the power to be exercised under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of the order of conviction is to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases having regard to all the aspects including ramification of such suspension and the applicant has a case, which fit into the said parameters. He has placed reliance upon he decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh , reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584, as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Atar Singh and another , reported in (2003) 12 SCC 434. He has also placed on record a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574.

4. In contrast, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. V.A. Thakare for the respondent would submit that power of suspension of conviction to be exercised under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and merely because the government servant is likely to lose his employment, according to him can never be a ground for exercising such a power. He place reliance upon the decision of the Court in the case of State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar , reported in (2012) 12 SCC 384 and in particular para 15 of the said law report, which has culled down a criteria for exercise of the said power, which is permitted to be exercised provided, the applicant satisfy the Court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the conviction is not suspended.

5. Before I turn to the ratio flowin