UMA CHARAN MOHANTY Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner (appellant) seeking suspension of order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 45 of 1993 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the P.C. Act.')

(2.) THE petitioner was put up on trial before the learned Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar on the accusation that during his incumbency as Branch Manager of Koraput Panchabati Grarnya Bank at Kenduguda during the year 1991 he demanded as well as accepted bribe of Rs. 900/ in total from the loanees such as Pitamber Lim, Dayanidhi Lima, Samuel Lima and Ghani Misal out of loan amount under I.R.D.A. Scheme implemented by the B.D.O., Padampur. After trial, the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), by a judgment dt. 12.10.2001 convicted the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ and in default to undergo R.I. for three months on each count which is under challenge in the aforesaid appeal. While admitting the appeal on 16.10.2001, this Court also directed the petitioner to be released on bail and stayed realisation of the fine amount. Subsequently, the petitioner moved the present application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. seeking suspension of the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I), Bhubaneswar, as stated above.

(3.) ON the other hand, reliance has been placed on (2001) 21 OCR (SC) 325 (K. C. Sereen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh), on behalf of the C.B.I. In support of the contention that the appellate Court, on appeal of a public servant against his conviction and sentence of corruption charges can suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal but cannot suspend the conviction.