SUMER DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-applicant has filed the instant criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code hereinafter) seeking suspension of conviction dated 31-12-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Headquarters Barmer, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 343, 323, 384, 326, 308 IPC and sentenced to various terms.

(2.) I have heard the appellant-applicant who is present in person, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Appellant-applicant has filed an application treating the criminal miscellaneous petition as a petition under Section 389 (1) of the Code relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kanhaiya Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2991 (3) WLC (Raj.) 411, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the Appellate Court may suspend the order of conviction under Section 389 (1) of the Code where it is capable to execution. Keeping in view the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the instant criminal miscellaneous application is treated as an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code.

(3.) It is submitted by the appellant-applicant that the substantive sentences awarded to him by the trial Court have already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 27-2- 2006, however, the Superintendent of Police, Barmer has now issued a notice dated 31-3-2006 under rule 19 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the CCA Rules hereinafter) proposing to impose major penalty under rule 14 of the CCA Rules on the ground that the appellant-applicant has been convicted by the trial Court. The appellant-applicant submits that the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, vide communication No. S/17/Jalore/Force/206/1729-32 dated 7-4-2006, has informed that in view of the Government Notification dated 24-5-2004, the appellant-applicant will be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years on 30-4-2007 and according to the appellantapplicant, he is to be superannuated on 30-4-2007. Abruptly he received the notice from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer dated 31-3-2006 proposing to impose major penalty under rule 14 of the CCA Rules on the ground of conviction standing against the appellant-applicant and, therefore, he, apprehending termination of his services, submits that the conviction may be suspended.