Stay of conviction requires exceptional circumstances and cannot be claimed merely on the basis of potential job loss.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for stay of conviction under S.389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' for brevity).

2. The question falls for consideration is whether applicant No. 2 Golu alias Devendra Kumar is entitled for stay of conviction under S.389(2) of the Cr.P.C.

3. The applicant No. 2 has been convicted under S.447 and S.427 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC ' for brevity) along with applicant No. 1 Laxmi Narayan Sao and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 100/- for commission of offence under S.447 of the IPC and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 200/- and till rising of Court for commission of offence under S.427 read with S.34 of the IPC.

4. Criminal appeal filed by the applicants before the Court of Session, Raigarh, which was dismissed by judgment dated 29/04/2014.

5. Questioning the impugned judgment affirming their conviction for the offence punishable under S.447 and S.427 read with S.34 of the IPC, they have preferred this revision under S.397 read with S.401 of the Cr.P.C.

6. IA No. 01/2014 has been filed for stay of conviction under S.389(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant No. 2 herein stating that he is employed and working in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur and if the impugned conviction is not stayed, he will lose his job, and thereby he will be deprived of his source of livelihood. Thus, in sum and substance, the applicant No. 2 has prayed for stay of conviction and thereby he has prayed for stay of operation of the effects of the declaration of being guilty.

7. In order to decide as to whether applicant No. 2 is entitled for stay of impugned judgment, it would be proper to notice the relevant judicial decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court to stay the conviction.

8. In Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali , 2007 (1) SCC 673 : 2006 AIR SCW 6365 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that the power to stay the conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.

9. In Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (2) SCC 574 : AIR 2007 SC 1003 , followed the decision of Ravikant S. Patil (supra) and at paragraph - 6, held as follows:
''6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to 'in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.''

10. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar 2012 (12) sec 384, referring also to the two decisions cited above, it has been held at paragraph - 15 that:
'15. ...the appellate court in an exceptional case, may put the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but such power must be exercised with great circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of action by it. The court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relie