M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) In this appeal, the accused appellant has moved an application under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the order of conviction dated 15.12.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 13/2000 against the accused appellant be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. M.L. Kumawat appearing on behalf of the accused appellant has contended that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 7, 13(1)(D) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He lastly submits that the appellant is a Government servant and if sentence of conviction imposed upon him is not suspended, then his services will be suspended.
(2.) The learned Public Prosecution has vehemently opposed it. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v/s. Deepak Mattu reported in : 2008 Cri. L.J. 322, the relevant portions of which is reproduced as under: - Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) Ss. 389, 362 -Suspension of conviction pending appeal -No Special reasons assigned by High Court while passing order -Possible delay in disposal of appeal and existence of arguable points -Not by itself be sufficient to grant sufficient to grant suspension -High Court while passing the said order merely noticed some points which could be raised in appeal -Grounds so taken do not suggest that respondent was proceeded against by State, malafide or in bad faith -Order was thus passed on wrong, illegal premise -High Court has inherent power to modify its own interlocutory order when matter is yet to be finally disposed of -Order declining to recall its own order -Liable to be set aside. 7. While passing the said order, the High Court did not assign any special reasons. Possible delay in disposal of the appeal and there are arguable points by itself may not be sufficient to grant suspension of a sentence. The High Court while passing the said Order merely noticed some points which could be raised in the appeal. The grounds so taken do not suggest that the respondent was preceded against by the State, mala -fide or any bad faith. In K.C. Sareenn (supra), this Court opined; 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 Sec. 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. It is in the light of the above legal position that we have to examine the question as to what should be the position when a public servant is convicted of an offence under the PC Act No doubt when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the superior court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof would render the very appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after the Tiling of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter. 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 paralyze 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 is 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 some times, 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 managing such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who sands convicted for corruption charges to hold only (sic) public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue top hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction. (underlined by me) In view of discussion made above, I am not inclined to stay the order of conviction passed by learned trial Court. The criminal stay application thus stands rejected.;