Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bolagani Jagan Mohan Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Crl.A.No.169 OF 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
03. 17.10.2024 VJP,J:
I.A.No.2 of 2024
Heard Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned
counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that petitioners herein are accused Nos.1
and 2 who worked as Sub-inspector and
Constable respectively at the time of alleged
incident. Learned counsel further would submit
that they have good grounds to succeed in the
Appeal as there are no specific allegations made
against the petitioners or observations made by
the learned trial Judge to found them guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of
SC & STs (PoA) Act, 1989. Learned counsel
further would submit that alleged incident
occurred on 09.01.2016 by that time Section 3
(1) (x) of SC & STs (PoA) Act, 1989, was not in
existence because of the amendments made.
Learned counsel further would submit that the
petitioners received appreciation from the
department for their services and in proof of the
same the documents were placed on record.
Learned counsel further would submit that due to
conviction for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 506, 3 (1) (x) of SC & STs (PoA)
Act, 1989 against the petitioners, they were
removed from the services vide order dated
15.04.2024
.
Learned counsel further would submit that
since it is not a case of moral turpitude or
touching integrity of the employee facing
allegations of corruption the conviction which was
recorded against the petitioners may be
suspended.
Learned counsel finally would argue that
removing the petitioners only on the point of the
impugned judgment of conviction may cause
irreparable injury to their service and also their
right to life, and badly affected their livelihood
seeking suspension of conviction recorded
against the petitioners vide impugned judgment.
Miss K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor would submit that the State
has no objection to suspend the conviction
against the petitioners, since the individuals were
removed from service because of the impugned
judgment. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
further would submit that since the impugned
judgment is under challenge in the present
Appeal before this Court, pending the Appeal, the
conviction may be suspended.
By virtue of orders dated 01.03.2024 in
I.A.No.1 of 2024, the sentence of imprisonment
against the petitioners has already suspended on
the same terms as imposed by the trial Court.
In that view, considering the submissions
made, since disposal of the Appeal may take
considerable time, the consequence of the
conviction caused removal of petitioners from
their employment, and that apart as rightly put by
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor impugned
judgment under challenge before this Court
which is not under Prevention of Corruption Act,
it is apposite to allow the petition.
Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is
allowed, suspending the conviction passed
against the petitioners/A1 and A2 vide judgment
in S.C.No.20/2017, dated 26.02.2024, on the file
of the Family Court-Cum-VIII Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Ongole, FAC Special Judge for
trial of offences under SC/STs (PoA) 1989-cum-
VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.
_________
VJP,J
MH
