K. BHAGYANATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against an order of an Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.10.2002 whereby he declined to suspend the order of conviction of the petitioner in an appeal preferred by him against an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) THE petitioner is found guilty and has been convicted by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for offence under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for offence under Sections 511 and 420 read with Section 120B, IPC. He has further been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for offence under Section 380, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC and he has also been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for offence under Section 468, IPC. All these sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) THE short question for consideration is whether the conviction of the accused for the offences as above mentioned, are liable to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was a bank employee. After the order of conviction and sentence he has received a show cause notice dated 16.10.2002 from his employer bank asking him to show cause by 25,10,2002 as to why he be not dismissed from service. He referred to Annexure C which is the show cause notice, He also referred to page 12 which showed that the employer bank proposes to impose on him the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect in view of the conviction order passed by the Court against him. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rama Narangv. Ramesh Narang and Ors., : [1995]1SCR456 ; Padam Singh v. State of U.P.,, 4 (1999) CCR 226 (SC) = , 2000 SCC 285 and Retti Deenabandu and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,, 1977 SCC 173, in support of his argument that if the order of conviction of the petitioner is not suspended the consequences would be very serious as the petitioner would be dismissed by the employer bank. Though he has tried to point out to certain alleged lacunas and deficiencies in the evidence of the petitioner by reading out certain portions for the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate but it will be inappropriate for this Court to meticulously examine the evidence and decide upon the point raised since the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is the subject matter of the appeal which is pending for hearing before the Appellate Court. Therefore, I refrain from commenting upon the merit of the case of the petitioner in appeal and confine this order only to the consideration of his prayer for suspension of the conviction order.