Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated July 10, 2002 passed by the Special Judge, Amritsar.
2. First Information Report 65 dated July 9, 1993 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Ajnala, Police District Majithia, district Amritsar under Sections 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide its order dated July 10, 2002.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was granted bail vide order dated July 31, 2002. Petitioner was served with the order dated May, 2003 (Annexure P1) passed by the Chief Engineer (Border Zone), Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was deprived of all the pensionary benefits, to which he was entitled to.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that conviction of the petitioner if not suspended, an irreparable loss would be caused to him. He has further stated that the appeal to mature will take a long time and as the sentence of the petitioner has been suspended, thus, conviction should also be suspended, so that services of the petitioner are not terminated and he gets his retiral benefits.
6. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera, 1995(3) R.S.J. 299, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that although Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the appellate Court to suspend the sentence or the order appealed against or to release the accused on bail, but it does not expressly speak of suspension of conviction. Still in certain situations, the appellate Court may also have the power to suspend the conviction. It has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that a precise request has to be made to the Court pointing out the consequences likely to fall on the continuance of the conviction order. The Court should apply its mind to the specific question and if it is thought that a case was made out, for grant of interim stay of the conviction order, with or without conditions attached thereto, it may grant an order of suspension of conviction.
7. The citation (Deputy Director of Collegiate Education) (supra) does not apply to the case in hand. The sole purpose of the petitioner to have his conviction suspended is that he may be reinstated, so that he could get his pensionary benefits. This is no ground to have the conviction suspended. He has been held guilty by the trial Court, after examining all the relevant record and evidence on the file.
8. Learned counsel has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, JT 1995(1) SC 515, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has suspended the conviction, but the facts of Rama Narang''s case (supra) do not apply to the case in hand, as in that case, conviction was suspended keeping in view the interest of the shareholders and the business of the Company.
9. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in its judgment rendered in the case of K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 718 (SC) : JT 2001(6) SC 59, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has laid down the law as to in which circumstances, conviction should be suspended. The Hon''ble Apex Court in K.C. Sareen''s case (supra) has held that mere challenge to the sentence and conviction does not mean that it would remain in limbo automatically. It has been further held that the order of suspension of conviction is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it should be limited to very exceptional cases. It has been further held that merely because the convicted person files an appeal, conviction cannot be suspended. The Court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It has been further held in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment that corruption by public servants has reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a Court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issue and findings made against such public servant once again, should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. It has been further held that if honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers, on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence, it was held that it is necessary that the Court should not aid the public servant, who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office, unit he is exonerated, after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. This authority is very clear as to when conviction should be suspended.
10. Conviction of the petitioner cannot be suspended. A corrupt official is wanting his conviction to be suspended, so that he can carry on with his work, which cannot be permitted.
11. In view of the above discussion, Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking suspension of conviction is dismissed.
