The legal position dictates that when a public servant is convicted of corruption, the appellate or revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of appeal, even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It is necessary to treat convicted public servants as corrupt until exoneration by a superior court and to keep them under disability of conviction despite suspending the sentence of imprisonment until the appeal or revision is disposed of.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This application has been moved under Section 389 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Vinod Kumar, applicant/appellant for staying the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which he has been convicted under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the `Act).

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this application are that there is no allegation of either demanding or accepting of bribe money by the applicant/appellant Vinod Kumar, rather such allegations are against Rashpal Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The allegations against the applicant are that Rashpal Singh further handed over Rs. 15,000/- to the applicant-Vinod Kumar. The applicant is a Panchayat Secretary in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samana, District Patiala. If his conviction is not stayed, he would face dismissal from service and the process for that has already begun. In these circumstances, his conviction may be stayed in the interest of justice.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

4. Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant has strenuously urged that there are no allegations against the applicant that he had demanded or accepted the bribe money and the only allegation against him is that the bribe money was recovered from him, which in itself is not enough to hold him guilty under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act and in these premises, his conviction may be stayed. He further contended that if his conviction is not suspended, he would be dismissed from service, with the result, his family will starve and the process for his dismissal has already been set in motion. To fortify this stand, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made in re : Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 496, State of Punjab v. Krishan Kumar Bhandari, 2003(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 423 and an unreported judgment of this Court, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 101430 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 531-SB of 2001, bearing caption Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, decided on 31.3.2008.

5. To tide over these submissions, Ms Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, maintained that this is a case in which the tainted money received by Rashpal Singh, co-accused as illegal gratification was recovered from the possession of this applicant and if his conviction is stayed, he would become entitled to hold the public office, which he misused earlier. This contention is impregnable and digestible for the discussion to follow hereunder.

6. As per allegations of the prosecution, on 17.7.2001, co-accused Rashpal Singh, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer demanded and accepted the bribe money to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant and after counting, he handed over the same to Vinod Kumar applicant, who put the same in the left pocket of his pant. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the applicant which gives an inkling that he was a party to this transaction of illegal gratification. In re : K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh, 2001(3) RCR(Criminal) 718 : AIR 2001 SC 3320, the appellant had been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and 120, 201 and 420 of IPC. The Apex Court observed that though the power to suspend an order of conviction apart from the order of sentence is not alien to Section 389 (1) of the Criminal Procedure 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 order of conviction. Corruption by public servants has now reached the monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappl