L SATHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the petitions are A-2, A-4, A-6, A-8 and A-9 and they were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur along with others under Section 324 I.P.C and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each apart from being convicted under Sections 147 and 149/324 I.P.C and being sentenced to fine. The petitioners filed criminal appeal No.72 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Kadapa at Proddatur against judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur. In the appeal they obtained suspension of sentences of imprisonment passed against them. They further sought for suspension of their convictions. The Additional Sessions Court refused to pass order suspending their convictions. As against the said order, they approached this Court with these petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code

(2.) The petitioners are all police officers and police personnel. It is their contention that in case their convictions are also not suspended, they are going to be dismissed from service on the basis of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The petitioners' counsel placed reliance on Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 2007 2 SCC 574 of the Supreme Court and contended that Section 389(1) Criminal Procedure Code enables the lower appellate Court to grant suspension of sentences as well as convictions passed by the trial Court. No doubt, the petitioners filed appeal before the lower appellate Court not only against the sentences but also against the order of conviction. Even though the appellate Court is enabled to suspend the conviction also, it will not clothe a convict with a right for such suspension. The Court has to see whether it was a fit case for ordering suspension of conviction also and whether irreparable injury is going to be caused to the convict in case his conviction is not suspended. In the case on hand, the consequence of non-suspension of convictions is going to result in dismissal of the petitioners from service. But, it is no irreparable injury at all. It becomes reparable the moment the appeal is allowed and their convictions are set aside. In case the appeal is going to be dismissed by the lower appellate Court, then the dismissal order continues to operate. In case the appeal is going to be allowed and their convictions are going to be set aside, then the Government will have to revoke their dismissal from service and reinstate them into service with all back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are going to suffer irreparable injury. In each and every case of Government servants being convicted, the appellate Courts cannot order suspension of conviction also as a matter of course.

(3.) In so far as A-4, A-6, A-8 and A-9 are concerned, by the time they filed this petition in this Court they were already dismissed from service. It is only in the case of A-2 he was still in service and this Court (P.Swaroop Reddy, J) by order dated 29.12.2009 granted interim suspension as prayed for. It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners are prepared to submit arguments before the lower appellate Court within few days and are prepared to receive judgment in the appeal on merits and that therefore suspension granted in favour of A-2 and which is subsisting for the last 2 years may not be disturbed pending disposal of the appeal by the lower appellate Court.