DEEPAK LAXMAN SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 as also section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On first count he is sentenced for R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for six months. For second count, he has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer further R. I for six months. The applicant has preferred criminal appeal and the appeal has been admitted.

(2.) By order on separate application, i. e. Criminal Application No. 16/2005, the applicant has been admitted to bail. By the present application, the applicant has prayed for suspension of the order of conviction. The argument is that the applicant/convict is an employee of M. S. E. B. and because of the conviction, his services are likely to be terminated. It is further pointed out that if the applicant succeeds in appeal, even on his reinstatement, he is not entitled to get backwages. It has been argued that the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury in case his service is terminated on account of his conviction. It is further pointed out that there is Circular which inter alia states that upon conviction of an employee, the provisions under the Service Regulation No. 10 (a) are to be invoked and action to terminate the service of such employee should be taken forthwith. Instruction No. (2) further states that in case such convict gets acquitted in appeal, he should be reinstated in service but he shall not be eligible for any payment from the date of termination of his service, to the date of reinstatement on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this is a fit case for suspension of order of conviction.

(3.) In short, the argument that services of the applicant/convict are likely to be terminated and because of a particular circular, if he is required to be reinstated on his appeal being allowed, he will not be entitled to get backwages, therefore, the conviction should be suspended. In support for suspension of conviction, Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel for the applicant, has placed reliance on two judgments, one Pralhad Sitaram Yeole vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (3) mh. LJ. 377, decided by this Court and another judgment by Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Tapiram Sapkale vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 (2) Mh. LR. 292. In both these cases, the order of conviction was stayed. True it is, that in both these cases on the similar facts conviction has been stayed. Reasons in both these decided cases for suspension of the sentence inter alia was that the employee/convict in the event of appeal against conviction being allowed was not to get backwages. Whether or not conviction should be suspended will have to be decided on the basis of fact of each particular case.