D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE appellants have prayed for suspending the order of conviction dated 29.08.2006, passed by the learned trial court against them for the offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier during the pendency of this Appeal, both the appellants were granted bail in the present criminal Appeal. The prayer for suspending the order of conviction of the appellants has been made on the following grounds: (i) That pursuant to the acquisition of the lands belonging to the appellants by the Bokaro Steel Plant and under the Scheme of acquisition, the appellant No. 2 is entitled to get employment in the Bokaro Steel Plant for which he has submitted his application in the prescribed format and the order of his conviction would jeopardize his prospects of obtaining employment, (ii) That the appellant No. 2 is also desirous of contesting the elections to the Gram Panchayat but under the provisions of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, a person cannot contest the election, if he has been convicted and sentenced for a period of more than six months and, as such, the order of conviction against the appellant would prevent him from contesting the elections. (iii) That on merits of the case, both the appellants deserve to be acquitted, since the conviction was based entirely on the testimony of the informant, who was himself a person having a criminal history and whose testimony has been proved false against the co -accused persons, who had faced the trial.
(2.) HIGHLIGHTING the above grounds, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have a very fair chance of succeeding in the appeal and since the appeal is not likely to be taken up. at an early date for hearing, the order of their conviction for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. would cause them irreparable injury and prejudice to their career and future prospects. In support of his prayer, learned Counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr. . Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the appellants have not made out any exceptional ground for suspending the order of their conviction and that the appellants have not brought out any specific consequences that would befall them on account of the conviction.
(3.) IT is relevant to note that both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. by the trial court.;