Allahabad High Court
Geeta Singh Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162837
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12421 of 2023
Petitioner :- Geeta Singh Gaur
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1st June, 2022 whereby petitioner's services have been dispensed with on account of her being convicted and sentenced by the court of criminal law vide detailed judgment and order dated 8th April, 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while assailing the above order in an appeal preferred by the convicted petitioner being Criminal Appeal No.- 3042 of 2022 the sentence awarded to the petitioner has been kept in abeyance and the applicant has been directed to be enlarged on bail only.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of provisions as contained under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. on an appeal being preferred against conviction and sentence the power vests to stay the sentence or the order appealed against and therefore, if order of sentence has been put in abeyance, it shall be deemed to be taken as if the order of conviction has also been kept in abeyance.
Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary has argued that the very phrase and expression used in the language of Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates situation where the Court may either stay the sentence or even the order that has been appealed against. It is argued, therefore, that in the present case in criminal appeal both the orders conviction and sentence have been subject matter of challenge but the Court in its discretion only stayed the sentence and, therefore, it is submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order dated 1st June, 2022 despite petitioner being enlarged on bail unless the order of this Court on 14th February, 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.- 3042 of 2022.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their argument raised across the bar and having perused the records particularly the order passed by the authority concerned and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.- 3042 of 2022, I find that the petitioner was convicted in connection with Case Crime No.- 272 of 1998 under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and for which she had tried in S.T. No.- 276 of 1999. She has been found guilty by the trial court and has accordingly, been convicted and further has been awarded sentence for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. It is on this account that in view of the provisions as contained under the relevant service rules, petitioner's services have been dispensed with by the competent authority, namely, Director, Food and Civil Supply, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner having approached the Court against the conviction and sentence vide Criminal Appeal No.- 3042 of 2022, the Court after recording reasons put in abeyance the sentence order only.
The sentence order is an order of punishment which is awarded to convict after she has been held guilty by the Court, the appellate court could have stayed the entire order but the Court in its discretion has stayed only order of sentence awarded to the petitioner on account of her being held guilty and so this Court does not find any fault with the order impugned herein this petition.
However, it is still open for the petitioner to seek further stay of conviction in a pending criminal appeal, if so advised.
Accordingly, I do not find it to be fit case to interfere in the order impugned at this stage.
Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023
Atmesh
