The legal position on suspension of conviction in cases of corruption charges should be limited to exceptional cases, considering the impact on public office and institutional functioning.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. The appellant/ applicant before this Court was convicted under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and was sentenced to undergo RI for two (2) years each on each count and was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each or to undergo SI for two (2 ) months each in default. The sentence awarded to the appellant has been suspended vide order dated 23.9.2010. Now this application has been filed by him seeking suspension of the conviction, primarily on the ground that the after retiring from service on 30.6.2010, he has not been able to join any employment due to his conviction though he is a senior citizen having a wife and a divorcee daughter besides aged parents, to be maintained by him.

2. The application has been opposed by the respondent – CBI stating therein that the appellant/ applicant was working as Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, when he demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- as bribe from the complainant for passing an order in his favour was caught red - handed, having accepted the said bribe. The respondent in its reply placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in K.C. Sareen versus CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584]; State of Maharashtra versus Gajanan and another [(2003) 12 SCC 432] and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi versus M. N. Sharma [(2008) 8 SCC 549] holding therein that the Appellate Court should not suspend the order of conviction during pendency of appeal, in a case of conviction on corruption charges.

3. In K.C. Sareen (supra), the Apex Court had before it the case of a government servant who was convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and was likely to lose his job in the event of conviction not being stayed. Rejecting the appeal of the convict, the Apex Court, inter alia, observed and held as under:

“11. The legal position, therefore, is this:

Though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal in challenge of the conviction the court should not suspend the operation of the order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance ...

12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would