RANVEER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and perused relevant record.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this application are that the accused-appellant Ranveer Singh Chauhan S/o. Shri Ganpat Singh Chauhan vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2012 passed by learned Judge, Designated Court, Rajasthan, Ajmer(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 19/2009 was convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') and sentenced under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellant has filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 947/2012 before this Court and the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court to the accused-appellant was suspended by this court vide order dated 19.11.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 962/2012. In this case the appellant has been found guilty of accepting gratification of Rs. 25,000/- while discharging his duties as Tehsildar in Tehsil Beawar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the appellant-applicant Ranveer Singh Chauhan is working as Tehsildar in Revenue Department. There is no evidence worth inspiring confidence on record to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime. Hearing of the appeal would take considerable time. The appellant was appointed as Tehsildar way back in the year 1987 and his career has remained unblemished till date, except this false and concocted case. There is no source of livelihood for the entire family of the appellant. In case the order of conviction is not stayed, there is every likelihood that services of the appellant would be terminated on account of his conviction vide impugned judgment. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the order of conviction of the accused-appellant be stayed during pendency of this appeal, otherwise, his family members would suffer economic hardship.