ASHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . S.C. Mittal, appearing for the accused -appellant, submits that the accused -appellant was on bail during trial. He submits that the accused -appellant has now been convicted for an offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and visited with a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment in respect thereto. Counsel submits that even though the accused -appellant has also simultaneously been convicted for offences under Secs. 420, 468, 471 IPC and also visited with a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the offences, all the sentences are to run concurrently as directed by the trial Court. Counsel submits that the issue in the present case is with regard to alleged complicity of the accused -appellant in facilitating unlawful gain to the purchasers of Railways' rolling stock at an auction. He submits that aside of the allegation as found proved by the trial Court that the action of the accused -appellant caused loss to Railways to an extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, no connection has been established between the accused -appellant and the auction purchasers to find any monetary benefit or other advantage to the accused -appellant. Counsel submits that in a worst case scenario, the omission by the accused -appellant to detail all seventeen items required to be reclaimed from the rolling stock before the auction cannot by itself constitute criminal misconduct. It is submitted that the trial Court has taken a mechanical view of the matter in finding the accused -appellant guilty of criminal misconduct solely on count of the purported loss to the Railways. Mr. T.P. Sharma, appearing for CBI would submit that the accused -appellant having been convicted by the trial Court by a well considered judgment, the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused -appellant gets completely whittled down. He submits that the order of the trial Court being a well reasoned and considered order, the accused -appellant has no merits in the appeal and thus ought not to find indulgence at the hands of this Court in the exercise of powers under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for the accused -appellant as also the respondent -CBI.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , on a balance of the right/interest of the parties before this Court, I would invoke the power under Sec. 389(1) Cr.P.C. and suspend the sentence of the accused -appellant as awarded by the trial Court under its impugned order dt. 24.12.2012 during the pendency of the appeal.