AMARNATH MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the State on an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 3777 of 2014 wherein prayer has been made on behalf of the appellant to stay the order of conviction passed against him on 15.4.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 514 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant, who happens to be the Cr.P.F. Personnel, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After his conviction, the appellant's services has been terminated and that is the reason for filing this interlocutory application for staying the order of conviction, as so long the order of conviction will remain in force, the appellant would be out of job.

(2.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the ground, which has been taken on behalf of the appellant for staying the order of conviction, is not tenable, in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar reported in : (2012) 12 SCC 384, wherein Their Lordships have categorically held that a plea of losing a job cannot be said to be tenable for staying the order of conviction.

(3.) IN that event, we do not find it a fit case for staying the order of conviction. Accordingly, the prayer made for staying the order of conviction is hereby, rejected.