GOPAL PRASAD KUMAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has moved this second stay application for staying the conviction recorded by the judgment dated 9.9.2011 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jaipur. The first stay application was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2011 as withdrawn. However, a liberty was given by this Court to the applicant to file a fresh application, if adverse step were taken against him by the department.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the applicant, by order dated 18.5.2012, the applicant has been dismissed from his service. Therefore, an adverse order has been passed on the ground that he has been convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that by order dated 19.9.2011, this Court suspended the sentence, as this Court was convinced that prima facie the applicant has an arguable case. Secondly, despite the fact that the learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove any demand made by the applicant, still the learned trial court has convicted him for the aforementioned offences. According to the learned counsel, since demand-one of the three elements, which needs to be proved by the prosecution-has not been proven, obviously, the applicant deserves to be acquitted. Thirdly, in case, the convection were not stayed and in case, applicant were acquitted eventually, an irreparably loss would be caused to the applicant. For, the appeal cannot possibly be heard in the near future. Therefore, if the appeal were to be decided after long time, the time lost by the applicant cannot be restored to him. Thus, it is a fit case for staying the conviction.