TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant case does not involve an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; the offences in question have not been committed in dischage of petitioner's official duties as a Police Sub Inspector; and the Delhi High Court suspended the conviction of a bank employee in similar circumstances in a criminal revision. Learned counsel cited for judgments in support of his contentions as : (i) K. C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584 : (2001 Cri LJ 4234); (ii) Union of India v. Atar Singh, ((2003) 12 SCC 434); (iii) State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan, (2003) 12 SCC 432 : (2004 Cri LJ 919) and (iv) K. Bhagyanath v. State, (2003 (2) RSJ 16) (Del).

(3.) In para 13 of the judgment of K. C. Sareen's case (2001 Cri LJ 4234), Hon'ble the Apex Court has laid down the law that when the conviction is recorded on a corruption charge against a public servant, the Appellate or the Revisional Court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence is suspended.