K.S.GAREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the appellant seeking stay of his conviction dated May 9, 2000 on the ground that the appellant has a case which is likely to succeed in appeal and conviction and sentence is likely to be set aside. However, it has been pleaded that the appellant has been dismissed from service on June 10, 2000 owing conviction in the present case and his dismissal is a disqualification for future employment as well.
(2.) THE application has been opposed by C.B.I. through reply filed by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Chandigarh in which it has been pleaded that the application is misconceived, the appellant has availed the benefit under section 389 Cr.P.C. Since the case involved an offence of moral turpitude, if the conviction of the appellant is stayed the other employees of the bank would be encouraged to commit such crimes. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Patiala who found that the appellant had accepted the bribe of Rs. 1000/- from Karnail Singh who applied for loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Punjab Ex-services Corporation whose case has been recommended for loan of Rs. 90,000/- payable in two instalments. Karnail Singh met the appellant three/four times in connection with the loan but every time he was put off. On November 5, 1997 the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1500/- and the deal was settled for Rs. 1000/- as bribe for release of cheque of Rs. 28,900/-. A trap was laid and the appellant was arrested after the bribe had been passed on. The trial Court convicted the appellant for offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo various terms. The appellant presented an appeal which was admitted on May 22, 2000 and the appellant was allowed to continue on bail during the pendency of the appeal on furnishing bail bonds.
(3.) THE above shows that the appellant was given the benefit of suspended sentence. At that stage, the appellant did not seek suspension of conviction. Admittedly, the appellant was dismissed from service on June 10, 2000. Therefore, the legal effect of the order of conviction has already been visited upon the appellant. Even otherwise, the facts and circumstances of the case do not entitle the appellant to an order regarding suspension of his conviction. The appellant shall have to succeed in the appeal in order to wipe off the effect of conviction. Consequently, there is no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed;