SITANSUMOHAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner having been convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act in T.R. No. 25 of 2003 was sentenced to undergo RI. for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 and in default to undergo RI. for a further period of 6 months, by learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar. He preferred an appeal along with three Petitioners - one for bail, another for stay of realization of fine and the third one for stay of the order of sentence. The first two petitions were allowed. The third one was rejected holding that in view of the orders passed in the first two petitions, it was found to be redundant. Now, the present petition has been filed under Section 389 (1)(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the order of conviction till the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court had ample power to stay the order of conviction, besides staying the order of sentence and releasing the Appellant -petitioner on bail. In support of his submission, he filed several decisions, all of which dealt with offences under the Indian Penal Code, except two cases. In the case of "Prasant Kumar Rout v. the State of Orissa" (an unreported decision), this Bench suspended the order of conviction in a case under P.C. Act, holding that it was a fit case for suspending the order of conviction since the Petitioner having been convicted under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was sentenced to undergo RI. for 3 months only. In the case of "Udayanath Behera v. State of Orissa, (1995) 9 OCR (SC) 353", the Apex Court held that the order of conviction passed in a case under P.C. Act can be suspended. But, the Appellant has to satisfy the Court that it was a fit case where such power should be exercised. Learned Counsel for the Appellant petitioner further submitted that unless the order of conviction was suspended, the Petitioner was likely to be dismissed from service.

(3.) WHILE passing the order in the case of Prasanta Kumar Rout (supra), the preceding decision as quoted was not cited before this Court. In the decision Udayanath Behera (supra), the Apex Court, as stated earlier, held that this Court could even suspend the order of conviction passed under P.C. Act, if the Appellant could satisfy the Court that it was a fit case where such power should be exercised. I am of the view that likelihood of dismissal of the Appellant Petitioner from service, if the order of conviction is not stayed, is not a sufficient ground to suspend the order of conviction. So, the decision in the case of Udayanath Behera would also be of no help to the Appellant -petitioner.