Orissa High Court
Ghanashyam Meher vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 11 December, 2023
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
I.A. No.2367 of 2022
(Arising out of CRLA No.1229 of 2022)
-------------------------
Ghanashyam Meher ....... Appellant/Petitioner
-Vrs.-
State of Odisha (Vig.) ....... Respondent/Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Devashis Panda
Advocate
For Opp. Party: - Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
-------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Order: 11.12.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. The appellant/petitioner Ghanashyam Meher who was
working as the Senior Clerk in the Junagarh Tahasil office has
filed this I.A. under section 389 of Cr.P.C. for stay of order of
conviction imposed on him by the impugned judgment dated
14.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
-cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R.
(Vigilance) Case No.22 of 2015/T.R. No.14 of 2016 in convicting
him under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)
// 2 //
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter >1988 Act?)
and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand),
in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month for the offence
under section 7 of the 1988 Act and R.I. for one year and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for the offence
under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and directing both the
substantive sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that P.W.5
Kulamani Meher lodged a written report before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna Unit on
10.09.2015 stating therein that on 18.08.2015, he submitted a
written report before the Inspector in-charge of Junagarh police
station against one Nimain Dalpati and Gobinda Meher as they
forcibly possessed some land under Khata No.88 in Mouza-
Brahmaniguda, which stood recorded in the R.O.R. in the name
of his grandfather and the said fact was entered in the Station
Diary vide No.346 dated 18.08.2015. According to P.W.5, the
Inspector in-charge of Junagarh police station by a letter
requested the Tahasildar, Junagarh for demarcation of the said
land who in turn directed the R.I., Kulihari to demarcate. The file
Page 2 of 23
// 3 //
of the demarcation case was with the petitioner. According to
P.W.5, on 23.08.2015 he met the petitioner and asked him to
send the order of the Tahasildar to the R.I., but the petitioner
expressed that the said work could not be done immediately and
it would take some eight to ten days time and a sum of Rs.500/-
(rupees five hundred) would be required for the same. It is
further stated that on 10.09.2015 at 12.50 p.m., P.W.5 again
met the petitioner and expressed that he was unable to pay such
amount, but the petitioner insisted that unless P.W.5 paid
Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred), he would not send the
demarcation order to the R.I. and therefore, P.W.5 agreed to pay
the amount. The petitioner asked P.W.5 to bring cash of
Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) on the next day for which P.W.5
approached the Vigilance Officer.
The written report being received by the D.S.P.
(Vigilance), Bhawanipatna Unit, was sent to the Superintendent
of Police (Vigilance), Koraput Division, Jeypore, who directed for
registration of the case. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance)
also directed the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Shri Narendra
Kumar Behera (P.W.6) to lay a trap and directed the D.S.P.
(Vigilance) Shri Ananta Kumar Majhi (P.W.7) to take up
investigation of the case after detection. Accordingly, Koraput
Page 3 of 23
// 4 //
Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 dated 10.09.2015 was registered
under section 7 of the 1988 Act.
P.W.6 after receiving the copy of F.I.R. on
10.09.2015, formed a team, procured two public servants to be
the witnesses to the trap proceeding, made a preparation for
laying a trap on 11.09.2015 and on the same day, proceeded to
Junagarh Tahasil Office. P.W.5 and the accompanying witness,
namely, Sri Samir Kumar Pattnaik (P.W.1) went inside the
Tahasil Office and others remained outside. At about 11.10 a.m.,
P.W.1 gave pre-arranged signal after amount of Rs.500/-
(rupees five hundred) was given by P.W.5 to the petitioner on
demand and then the Vigilance team along with other
independent witness entered into the Tahasil Office. The
petitioner on being confronted by P.W.6 denied to have received
any money as bribe. P.W.6 took the hand wash and shirt pocket
wash of the petitioner in sodium carbonate solution which turned
pink and he preserved the same in bottles and seized. There was
recovery of tainted notes of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) from
the exclusive possession of the petitioner and the numbers of the
notes were verified and it got tallied with the numbers noted
down during trap preparation in the preparation report. The
tainted currency notes and other articles were seized by P.W.6,
Page 4 of 23
// 5 //
who prepared a detection report and produced all the documents
along with the petitioner before P.W.7, who on examining P.W.5
and the witnesses and on being satisfied about the commission
of the offence by the petitioner, forwarded the petitioner to the
Court.
As per the prayer made by the Investigating Officer
(P.W.7), the statement of P.W.5 and the accompanying witness
were recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C.
P.W.7 also sent the collected hand wash in bottles for chemical
examination, obtained sanction for prosecution of the petitioner
from the appropriate authority and on completion of
investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner
under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of
the 1988 Act to stand his trial in the Court of law.
3. The learned trial Court in its impugned judgment has
been pleased to hold that it is crystal clear that the petitioner
though received the letter of the Inspector in-charge of Junagarh
police station dated 22.08.2015 and the application of the
complainant (P.W.5) with endorsement of Tahasildar directing
the R.I. to make measurement of the land of P.W.5, he sat over
the matter for long time and only when P.W.5 approached and
assured him to pay Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) on
Page 5 of 23
// 6 //
11.09.2015, he started registering the case and such deliberate
conduct of the petitioner indicates that he wanted illegal
gratification/remuneration/reward from the complainant to
process his application and send it to concerned R.I. and the
evidence of P.W.5 is clear enough that on more than one
occasion, he visited the Tahasil Office, Junagarh to get his
genuine work to be done but the petitioner caused delay in the
matter and ultimately, being displeased with the conduct of the
petitioner, P.W.5 approached the vigilance authorities. It is
further held that P.W.5 deliberately gave false statement in the
Court under the influence of the petitioner and the facts stated in
the F.I.R. and his earlier statement recorded under sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. implicating the petitioner are correct and the
submission that earlier F.I.R. of P.W.5 was suppressed and
substituted by Ext.12 is an embroidered hypothesis, which is not
believable. It is further held that the prosecution has been able
to clearly establish the fact of demand of bribe of Rs.500/-
(rupees five hundred) by the petitioner from P.W.5 and the
petitioner received the same from P.W.5 on 11.09.2015 in
presence of P.W.1. It is further held that the prosecution has
complied with the requirement of sanction order under section
19 of the 1988 Act by proving Ext.21. Learned trial Court further
Page 6 of 23
// 7 //
held that the defence has not been able to show by probabilities
of any kind that he was falsely implicated by the vigilance
authorities who have neither any personal interest in the matter
nor it is shown that they had any grudge against the petitioner
to grind him in a false case and the defence plea accordingly
failed. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the
offences under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act has been committed by the petitioner
and the petitioner was found guilty of such charges.
4. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has illegally
convicted the petitioner under section 7 and section 13(2) read
with section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. He further argued that the
learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has picked and
chose only the portion of evidence of the prosecution to be
utilized against the petitioner and discarded the rest evidence in
favour of the petitioner without any justifiable reason. It was
further argued that the deposition of the witnesses of the
prosecution during the cross-examination was not taken into
account. He further argued that the prosecution having led no
evidence whatsoever to show that there was any prior demand
of bribe by the petitioner to issue instructions to the R.I., Kulihari
Page 7 of 23
// 8 //
to demarcate the lands and show undue favour to P.W.5, the
finding of the learned trial Court that prosecution has been able
to establish the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe
against the petitioner is wholly misconceived. He further argued
that no work of P.W.5 was pending with the petitioner for which
he could have demanded the alleged money as bribe and rather
the evidence of P.W.5 established the petitioner?s plea that
money was required to be deposited towards arrears of rent and
for demarcation fees. He further argued that the P.W.5 himself
has disowned the fact of demand and when the prosecution has
not examined any other witnesses being present at the time of
occurrence to prove that the money was paid as per the demand
then the offence is not proved and the learned trial Court has
erroneously come to a illogical conclusion. He further argued that
had the learned trial Court considered the evidence on record in
favour of the petitioner and not ignored the same, the impugned
order of conviction would not have come into existence. The
finding recorded by the learned trial Court is out and out
perverse and without any application of its judicial mind and
therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law. He
further submitted that the apprehension of losing the job might
not be the sole criteria for granting stay of conviction, but the
Page 8 of 23
// 9 //
exceptional and special circumstances which exist in the facts of
the case sufficiently indicate that the present litigation is luxury
litigation on the part of the prosecution at the cost of the
petitioner. He argued that the petitioner has already been
dismissed from government service and facing financial hardship
and there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal on merit
and therefore, when the prosecution has not proved the guilt of
the petitioner to the hilt, this Court may be pleased to pass an
order of stay of conviction.
Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
for the Vigilance Department appearing for the opposite party
vehemently opposed the prayer for stay of conviction and also
filed his objection to such petition. It was contended that the
learned trial Court after going though the evidence on record has
rightly found the petitioner guilty and since stay of conviction
should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and in
rare cases where failure to stay conviction would lead to injustice
and irreversible consequences, nothing having been pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that respect, no
favourable order should be passed in his favour. It is further
contended that besides getting legal remuneration, demanding
and accepting bribe has come a >MANTRA? in the public
Page 9 of 23
// 10 //
institutions by the public servants. It has become a contagious
disease in the society, which needed social reforms and judicial
inference to get rid of the same. He further submitted that so far
as the contentions of suspension/stay of conviction and sentence
of the petitioner is concerned, the interim application is liable to
be dismissed because of his conviction and sentence for
committing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
and being held to be a corrupt public servant by accepting illegal
gratification as a >motive?. He further submitted that as the law is
equal to all and to be judged impartially, the petitioner does not
stand in a different footing to be considered in any special
circumstances, when he has been found guilty for adopting
corruption by thinking it to be his official act. He further
contended that the petitioner ought to have thought of the
consequences regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money
against discharging the official duties. He also contended that in
the event, the petitioner succeeds in the criminal appeal
preferred by him before this Court, he would be at liberty to
claim all of his consequential benefits from the Government and
in view of the above, the I.A. should be dismissed.
5. First, let me deal with the ambit and scope of section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. relating to stay of judgment and order of
Page 10 of 23
// 11 //
conviction by the appellate Court as were placed by the learned
Standing Counsel for the vigilance department.
In the case of K.C. Sareen -Vrs.- C.B.I.,
Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases
584, it is held as follows:-
<11. The legal position, therefore, is this:
though the power to suspend an order of
conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is
not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its
exercise should be limited to very exceptional
cases. Merely because the convicted person files
an appeal in challenge of the conviction, the
Court should not suspend the operation of the
order of conviction. The Court has a duty to look
at tall aspects including the ramifications of
keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the
light of the above legal position that we have to
examine the question as to what should be the
position when a public servant is convicted of an
offence under the PC Act. No doubt when the
appellate Court admits the appeal filed in
challenge of the conviction and sentence for the
offence under the PC Act, the superior Court
should normally suspend the sentence of
imprisonment until disposal of the appeal,
because refusal thereof would render the very
appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard
soon after the filing of the appeal. But
Page 11 of 23
// 12 //
suspension of conviction of the offence under the
PC Act, dehors the sentence of imprisonment as
a sequel thereto, is different matter.
12. Corruption by public servants has now
reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its
tentacles have started grappling even the
institutions created for the protection of the
republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted
and impeded from gripping the normal and
orderly functions of the public offices, through
strong legislative, executive as well as judicial
exercises, the corrupt public servants could even
paralyse the functioning of such institutions and
thereby hinder the democratic policy.
Proliferation of corrupt public servants could
garner momentum to cripple the social order if
such men are allowed to continue to manage
and operate public institutions. 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 Court or revisional forum has
decided to entertain his challenge and to go into
the issues and findings made against such public
servants once again should not even temporarily
absolve him from such findings. If such a public
servant becomes entitled to hold public office
and to continue to do official acts until he is
Page 12 of 23
// 13 //
judicially absolved from such findings by reason
of suspension of the order of conviction, it is
public interest which suffers and sometimes
even irreparably. When a public servant who is
convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to
hold public office, it would impair the morale of
the other persons manning such office, and
consequently that would erode the already
shrunk confidence of the people in such public
institutions besides demoralising the other
honest public servants who would either be the
colleagues or subordinates of the convicted
person. 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 is necessary that the Court
should not aid the public servant who stands
convicted for corruption charges to hold only
public office until he is exonerated after
conducting a judicial adjudication at the
appellate or revisional level. It is a different
matter if a corrupt public officer could continue
to hold such public office even without the help
of a Court order suspending the conviction.=
In the case of State of Maharastra through C.B.I.
-Vrs.- Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar reported in (2012)
53 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 1233, it is held as follows:-
Page 13 of 23
// 14 //
<12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, a
clear picture emerges to the effect that, the
Appellate Court in an exceptional case, may put
the conviction in abeyance along with the
sentence, but such power must be exercised
with great circumspection and caution, for the
purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the
Court as regards the evil that is likely to befall
him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The
Court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded
by the applicant, in a judicious manner and
examined whether the facts and circumstances
involved in the case are such, that they warrant
such a course of action by it. The court
additionally, must record in writing, its reasons
for granting such relief. Relief of staying the
order of conviction cannot be granted only on
the ground that an employee may lose his job, if
the same is not done.
xx xx xx xx xx
14. The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly
not sustainable in law if examined in light of the
aforementioned judgments of this Court.
Corruption is not only a punishable offence but
also undermines human rights, indirectly
violating them, and systematic corruption, is a
human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to
systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the
aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not
have passed the said order of suspension of
Page 14 of 23
// 15 //
sentence in a case involving corruption. It was
certainly not the case where damage if done,
could not be undone as the
employee/Respondent if ultimately succeeds,
could claim all consequential benefits. The
submission made on behalf of the Respondent,
that this Court should not interfere with the
impugned order at such a belated stage, has no
merit for the reason that this Court, vide order
dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation
of the said impugned order.=
In the case of State of Punjab -Vrs.- Deepak
Mattu reported in A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court 35, it is held
as follows:-
<7. While passing the said Order, the High
Court did not assign any special reasons.
Possible delay in disposal of the appeal and
there are arguable points by itself may not be
sufficient to grant suspension of a sentence. The
High Court while passing the said Order merely
noticed some points which could be raised in the
appeal. The grounds so taken do not suggest
that the Respondent was proceeded against by
the State, mala fide or any bad faith....=
In the case of Pruthwiraj Lenka -Vrs.- State of
Odisha (Vigilance) reported in (2022) 85 Orissa Criminal
Reports 667, it is held that law is well settled that possible
Page 15 of 23
// 16 //
delay in disposal of the appeal and/or presence of arguable
points in the appeal by itself may not be sufficient in staying the
order of conviction of the trial Court without assigning any
special reasons. An order granting stay of conviction is not the
Rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases
depending upon the facts of a case. Where the execution of the
sentence is stayed, the conviction continues to operate. But
where the conviction itself is stayed, the effect is that the
conviction will not be operative from the date of stay. As order of
stay, of course, does not render the conviction non-existent, but
only non-operative.
In the case of Om Prakash Sahani -Vrs.- Jai
Shankar Chaudhary and another etc. reported in (2023)
91 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 84, it is held as follows:-
<33....The Appellate Court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of section
389 of the Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas
or loopholes here or there in the case of the
prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach.
34. In the case on hand, what the High Court
has done is something impermissible. High Court
has gone into the issues like political rivalry,
delay in lodging the F.I.R., some over-writings in
the First Information Report etc. All these
Page 16 of 23
// 17 //
aspect, will have to be looked into at the time of
the final hearing of the appeals filed by the
convicts. Upon cursory scanning of the evidence
on record, we are unable to agree with the
contentions coming from the learned Senior
Counsel for the convicts that, either there is
absolutely no case against the convicts or that
the evidence against them is so weak and feeble
in nature, that, ultimately in all probabilities the
proceedings would terminate in their favour.....=
In the case of A.B. Bhaskara Rao -Vrs.- Inspector
of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam reported in A.I.R. 2011
Supreme Court 3845, it is held as follows:-
<19. From the analysis of the above decisions
and the concerned provisions with which we are
concerned, the following principles emerge:
a) When the Court issues notice confining to
particular aspect/sentence, arguments will be
heard only to that extent unless some
extraordinary circumstance/material is shown to
the Court for arguing the matter on all aspects.
b) Long delay in disposal of appeal or any other
factor may not be a ground for reduction of
sentence, particularly, when the statute
prescribes minimum sentence. In other cases
where no such minimum sentence is prescribed,
it is open to the Court to consider the delay and
its effect and the ultimate decision.
Page 17 of 23
// 18 //
c) In a case of corruption by public servant,
quantum of amount is immaterial. Ultimately it
depends upon the conduct of the delinquent and
the proof regarding demand and acceptance
established by the prosecution.
d) Merely because the delinquent lost his job
due to conviction under the Act may not be a
mitigating circumstance for reduction of
sentence, particularly, when the Statute
prescribes minimum sentence.=
The appreciation of evidence in detail at the final
stage of hearing of criminal appeal is not to be adopted at the
stage of dealing with interim application for stay of judgment and
order of conviction inasmuch any finding on the merits of the
case by way of appreciation of evidence at the stage of
consideration of interim application for stay of conviction is likely
to prejudice either of the parties.
There is no doubt that in view of settled position of
law, the appellant has to make out a rare and exceptional case
for the grant of stay against conviction under section 389 of
Cr.P.C. There must be special and compelling circumstances in
justification for the grant of such stay against conviction. There
should be irreversible consequences leading to injustice and
irretrievable damages in the event of non-grant of stay against
Page 18 of 23
// 19 //
conviction. The impugned judgment of conviction should be
based on no evidence or against the weight of evidence, which
must prima facie appear on the face of it without conducting a
detailed analysis into the merit of the case. Possible delay in
disposal of the appeal and that there are arguable points by itself
may not be sufficient to grant stay of conviction.
6. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decisions and keeping in view the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, it is to be seen
whether the petitioner has made out a very rare and exceptional
case for grant of stay of order of conviction. What the evil that is
likely to befall on the petitioner, if the order of conviction is not
stayed? Whether failure to stay the order of conviction would
lead to injustice and irreversible consequences?
P.W.5 has supported the prosecution case to a great
extent and has stated about demand, acceptance and recovery
of tainted money from the appellant. He stated that when he met
the petitioner, the latter informed him that the petitioner had to
pay a sum of Rs.500/- arrear rent and further informed that
P.W.5 was to meet some other expenditure. He stated about
participating in the preparation of trap and producing five
numbers of hundred rupee notes during such preparation which
Page 19 of 23
// 20 //
were used as tainted money and he also stated to have
proceeded to Junagarh Tahasil Office with P.W.1 and handed
over the money to the petitioner. He further stated that when
the vigilance team asked the petitioner to return the five
numbers of hundred rupee notes taken as bribe, the petitioner
refunded the same. Of course, P.W.5 has been declared hostile
by the prosecution, but in the cross-examination by the Special
P.P., he has stated that the petitioner told him that if he (P.W.5)
paid a sum of Rs.500/-, the demarcation would be carried out
and that he had met the petitioner twice prior to the lodging of
F.I.R. and both times, the petitioner told him that a sum of
Rs.500/- would be necessary to meet the expenditure. The law is
well settled that the evidence of a witness who has been
declared hostile can be relied upon if there are some other
materials on the basis of which said evidence can be
corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a witness as
contained in examination-in-chief, which remains unshaken even
after cross-examination, is fully reliable even though the witness
has been declared hostile. (Ref: Devraj -Vrs.- State of
Chhattisgarh : (2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 366).
P.W.1 acting as overhearing witness has corroborated the
evidence of P.W.5 and has stated that while he was standing at a
Page 20 of 23
// 21 //
distance from the petitioner and P.W.5 in Junagarh Tahasil
Ofiice, P.W.5 paid the bribe money of Rs.500/- to the petitioner
and the petitioner received the same in his hand and counted it
with his both hands and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. P.W.1
also stated about the hand wash of the petitioner being taken in
his presence and recovery of tainted money from the possession
of the petitioner. P.W.3 and P.W.6 have also stated about the
hand wash of the petitioner being taken in their presence and
recovery of tainted money from the possession of the petitioner.
Apart from the oral evidence, the documentary evidence also
indicates about recovery of tainted notes from the possession of
the petitioner. The hand wash of the petitioner so also his shirt
pocket wash which were marked as Exts.C, D and E on chemical
analysis indicates presence of phenolphthalein. The petitioner in
his accused statement has pleaded that P.W.5 forcibly thrust the
money in his hand as he refused to pass any order in his case.
No defence witness has been examined.
7. After carefully and meticulously analyzing the finding
of the learned trial Court, the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and the evidence on record, I
am of the humble view that at this stage, it cannot be said that it
is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Whether the
Page 21 of 23
// 22 //
evidence available on record would be sufficient to uphold the
impugned judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner or
on the basis of points raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the petitioner is
to be adjudicated at the final stage when the appeal would be
heard on merit. Giving any finding on the merits of the case is
likely to cause prejudice to either of the parties. This Court will
certainly have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence
and decide the acceptability or creditworthiness of the evidence
of witnesses at the final stage of hearing of the appeal on merit.
At this stage, reappreciation of evidence by conducting detailed
analysis and trying to pick up lacunas or loopholes in the case of
the prosecution is not permissible. No extraordinary
circumstance/material is shown to this Court for granting the
desired relief to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has
been dismissed from the government service by the order of the
Collector & Disciplinary Authority, Kalahandi and that he is likely
to face financial hardship and there is no chance of early hearing
of the appeal are not the grounds for granting the reliefs sought
for.
Therefore, I am of the humble view that for the
limited purpose of ascertaining whether stay of order of
Page 22 of 23
// 23 //
conviction be granted or not, I find that the petitioner has failed
to make out a very exceptional case or special reasons for
keeping the conviction in abeyance and as such, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the relief sought for by the petitioner
for staying the order of conviction cannot be granted.
8. Accordingly, the interim application being devoid of
merits, stands dismissed.
By way of abundant caution, I would like to place it
on record that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this
order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the
prayer for staying the order of conviction of the petitioner.
Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression
of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for
decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done at the
final stage of the hearing of the criminal appeal on merit.
Urgent certified copy be granted on proper
application.
..............................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 11th December 2023/Pravakar/RKMishra
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Dec-2023 15:24:32
