PEERU MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the appellant in Crl A No. 377/2009 on the file of Additional Sessions CourtI, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted for offences under S.323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, which is challenged in the criminal appeal. Crl MP No. 1575/2009 was filed to suspend the conviction contending that petitioner, being a Police Constable, is liable to be removed from service unless the conviction is suspended. By order dated 25/06/2009 learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition holding that there is no provision for suspending the conviction and under S.389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, only the sentence could be suspended. This petition is filed to quash the order dated 25/06/2009 and to grant suspension of the conviction.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not correctly appreciate the scope of S.389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as declared by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, 1995 KHC 1274 : 1995 (2) SCC 513 : 1995 (83) Comp Cas 194. This decision was followed in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 2007 KHC 3078 : AIR 2007 SC 1003 : 2007 (2) SCC 574 : JT 2007 (2) SC 382 : 2007 (1) KLD 364 and therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition for the reason that there is no provision of suspending the conviction. Learned counsel also argued that under sub-s.(2) of S.389, the power is available to this Court also and therefore, conviction is to be suspended.