SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) APPLICANT Pala Ram (Petitioner No. 9 in the revision petition) has filed this application under Section 482 read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for suspension of the order of his conviction during the pendency of the revision petition.
(2.) THE revision filed by Petitioner No. 9 along with other co-accused against their conviction and sentenced passed by JMIC, Bhiwani and upheld by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, was admitted by this Court on July 14, 2006. While admitting the revision, the sentence of the petitioners was ordered to be suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM, Bhiwani. Petitioner No. 9 was working as JBT teacher in a Government Primary School. After his conviction, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.10.2006 only on the ground that he was convicted in the aforesaid case. The appeal filed by him against the said order is pending consideration before the competent Court. It is the case of the applicant-petitioner No. 9 that he was the only earning member in the family and from the salary he looked after his wife and children. It is further contended that actually petitioner No. 9 was falsely implicated along with the other persons in the aforesaid case in which he was alleged to have given one injury to Kalawati which is simple in nature and falls under Section 323 IPC. He contends that in case the order of conviction of the applicant is not suspended, the appeal filed by him against his termination would also be dismissed, therefore, the order of conviction qua him be stayed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that this Court has ample power under Section 482 read with Sections 401 and 389 of the Code to suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the revision/appeal. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the order of conviction qua the applicant is not stayed and subsequently at the time of final hearing of the revision he is found innocent, then the damage done to Petitioner No. 9 cannot be undone. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, 1995(2) SCC 513 and Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 836 (SC) : 2007(1) R.A.J. 310 : JT 2007(2) SCC 382. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment of this Court in Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 799 (P&H) and Tarsem Singh v. State Chandigarh Administration, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 831 (P&H), wherein the order of conviction passed against the accused was suspended during the pendency of the appeal/revision to save his dismissal from the service. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Jasminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 315 (P&H), wherein the order of conviction passed against the accused under Section 306 IPC was suspended to save the service of a Class-IV employee.;