Allahabad High Court
Munna Lal vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7440 of 2017
Appellant :- Munna Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Anita Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Order on Criminal Misc. Application No. 7 of 2018):
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
The accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 14 of 2002 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Gupta & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2001 for the offence under section 13(1)(D) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act & Sections 120-B, 218, 408, 467, 468, 471A IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District Agra.
Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that accused-appellant who is a government servant and is going to retire has already been released on bail. His involvement in the alleged crime in which he has been convicted was doubtful, but evidence was not properly appreciated and he was convicted. Despite the fact that he has been released on bail, execution of sentence/conviction has not been stayed. Further submission is that since the appellant is only bread earner of his entire family, the sentence may be suspended otherwise appellant would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has referred the impugned judgement in order to show that involvement of accused-appellant was doubtful. Since argument is not being made on the merit of the case, it is not required to express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Only the issue which is to be determined is whether in such kind of cases for which a government servant has been convicted for corruption and criminal misappropriation and other serious offence, the sentence should be suspended or not.
Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a judgement in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1186 has argued that sentence may be suspended.
From perusal of above judgement, it appears that Supreme Court has very clearly laid down that suspension of sentence in a case where accused person has been convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, he should be kept on different parameter. The Supreme Court also held that 'when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision'.
Keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court in referred case, keeping the fact that accused-appellant has been convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act and other serious offence of like nature and considering the magnitude of offence, I do not find any good reason to suspend the sentence/conviction of accused appellant.
Accordingly, application is rejected.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019
RCT/-
