HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.1140/2020

In

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1659/2018

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Lal, R/o Gram Bagod, Ps Khanpur, District

Jhalawar, Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jhalawar).

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rohitash Kumar Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

03/03/2021

Applicant has moved this criminal miscellaneous stay

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (read with 397 (401) Cr.P.C.)

in which he wants to stay the conviction order passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, District Jhalawar in Criminal Case

No.48/2006 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal and others) on

03.10.2016 and confirmed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act

Cases), Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No.64/2017 (Sohan Lal and

others Vs. State of Rajasthan) on 06.09.2018.

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the accused-

applicant was Head Master in Government School Chandpura

Chaplada (Khanpur) but due to conviction in the above mentioned

criminal case, he was terminated from services on 10.07.2019 by

Joint Director (School Education) Kota Division, Kota. Learned

(2 of 4)

counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is

facing hardship due to conviction. Appeal against the conviction is

pending and suspension of sentence was allowed vide order dated

01.02.2019. So, during the pendency of the revision, stay of

conviction of accused-applicant be stayed.

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has placed

reliance on Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang reported in

(1995) 2 SCC 513 Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan

reported in 2013 SCC online Raj. 450, Bhagwan Singh vs. State

reported in 2009 WLC 575, Shivlal vs. State of Rajasthan

reported in 2007 (3) RCC 1039, Murarilal vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in 2009 (2) WLC 345 and Navjot

Singh Siddhu vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 2 SCC

574.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the

parties.

Larger Bench of Apex Court in Rama Narang’s case (Supra)

held as under:-

“That takes us to the question whether the scope of

Section 389(1) of the Code extends to conferring

power on the Appellate Court to stay the operation of

the order of conviction. As stated earlier, if the order of

conviction is to result in some-disqualification of the

type mentioned in Section 267 of the Companies Act,

we see no reason why we should give a narrow

meaning to Section 389(1) of the Code to debar the

court from granting an order to that effect in a fit

case. The appeal under Section 374 is essentially

against the order of conviction because the order of

sentence is merely consequential thereto; albeit even

the order of sentence can be independently challenged

if it is harsh and disproportionate to the established

guilt. Therefore, when an appeal is preferred

under Section 374 of the Code the appeal is against

(3 of 4)

both the conviction and sentence and therefore, we

see no reason to place a narrow interpretation

on Section 389(1) of the Code not to extend it to an

order of conviction. Although that issue in the instant

case recedes to the background because High Courts

can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the Code if the power was not to be found in Section

389(1) of the Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion

that the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay

was not right in holding that the Delhi High Court

could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code if it was confronted with a situation of

there being no other provision in the Code for stay