JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-appellant has filed this application under Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure for staying/suspending the operation of impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2003.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant submitted that the present case is an exceptional one where the conviction of the applicant-appellant should be stayed by this Court. He submitted that as per the prosecution allegations, the applicant-appellant and his co-accused Birbal have dishonestly taken Rs. 6,000/- from one Ram Kumar in the year 1994, whereas the FIR was registered on 13.1.1999. He further submitted that the complainant, who is alleged to have given bribe of Rs. 6,000/-, has not been examined and according to the prosecution, the amount was given to the co-accused Birbal and not to the applicant-appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, while referring to the various parts of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and findings recorded by the trial court, submitted that in the instant case the applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated and the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish his guilt. He further submitted that the applicant-appellant is a poor person, drawing a meagre salary, and has to support big family and if his conviction is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal, which is likely to succeed, his services are likely to be terminated by the department. He further submitted that hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time.