A.K.SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order is being passed on I.A. (Cr.) No. 644/03 read with supplementary affidavit filed on 22.8.2003.

(2.) ADMITTED facts are that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the offence caught red -handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 10,000/ - and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 15.000/ -. Admittedly, the petitioner is in suspension in relation to the same offence with effect from 27th April, 1994. On conviction, the petitioner filed this appeal, which was admitted and the petitioner was also admitted to bail, meaning thereby that the sentence was kept in abeyance. Now by filing the aforesaid I.A., the petitioner has sought for stayal of the conviction on the ground that under Rule 68(7)(i) of the State Bank of India Officers ' Service Rules, the petitioner, on being convicted, can be discharged from the service and the said discharge under the said Rule is under contemplation. Therefore, the question arises whether the order of conviction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is executable and whether it can be stayed ? To find this answer, it is relevant to reproduce the Rule 68(7)(i) of (he said Rules, which is as follows :

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision rendered in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors., reported in 1995 (2) East Cr C 307 (SC) : (1995) 2 SCC 513, and referring to paragraph 16 of the said judgment, argued that when in certain cases, the conviction is executable, the attention of the appellate Court must be invited to the consequence that is likely to fall to enable it to apply its mind to the issue since under Section 389(1) it is under an obligation to support its order for the reasons to be recorded by it in writing. He argued that in this case, the specific case has been brought in the form that the conviction order may be executed against the petitioner by discharging him from service. Another judgment relied upon by him is 2001 (3) East Cr C 50 (SC) : 2001 Cr LJ 4234, K.C.Sareen V/s. C.B.I., Chandigarh. He vehemently argued that though the facts of this case is completely different from that of the petitioner, so much so that the petitioner is under suspension and if only the conviction is stayed, then he is prevented from being discharged, in view of the Rule (supra), but nevertheless, he will remain suspended only and if he remains under suspension, he will not be holding any public office. Consequently, the ratio laid down in 2001 Cr LJ 4234 will not be applicable.