Rajasthan High Court
Akhey Singh S/O Ram Prasad B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Stay Application No.41/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1902/2018
Akhey Singh S/o Ram Prasad, R/o Shahjahanpur, Police Station
Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Raj. (At Present In District Jail,
Jhunjhunu)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shantnu Bansal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
13/01/2021
Applicant has moved a criminal miscellaneous stay
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which he prayed that the
judgment of conviction order dated 07.08.2018 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case
No.38/2015 (CIS No.1668/2015) titled as State of Rajasthan Vs.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors., be stayed.
It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is working as a Constable in police line. Department is
going to terminate his service on account of conviction.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-1902/2018]
I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the
parties.
Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in "Rama Narang Vs.
Ramesh Narang" Case (Supra) held as under:-
"That takes us to the question whether the scope of
Section 389(1) of the Code extends to conferring
power on the Appellate Court to stay the operation of
the order of conviction. As stated earlier, if the order of
conviction is to result in some-disqualification of the
type mentioned in Section 267 of the Companies
Act ,we see no reason why we should give a narrow
meaning to Section 389(1) of the Code to debar the
court from granting an order to that effect in a fit case.
The appeal under Section 374 is essentially against the
order of conviction because the order of sentence is
merely consequential thereto; albeit even the order of
sentence can be independently challenged if it is harsh
and disproportionate to the established guilt.
Therefore, when an appeal is preferred under Section
374 of the Code the appeal is against both the
conviction and sentence and therefore, we see no
reason to place a narrow interpretation on Section
389(1) of the Code not to extend it to an order of
conviction. Although that issue in the instant case
recedes to the background because High Courts can
exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code if the power was not to be found in Section
389(1) of the Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay
was not right in holding that the Delhi High Court could
not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code if it was confronted with a situation of there
being no other provision in the Code for staying the
operation of the order of conviction. In a fit case if the
High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction
needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted
persons does not suffer from a certain disqualification
provided for in any other statute, it may exercise the
power because otherwise the damage done cannot be
undone; the disqualification incurred by Section 267 of
the Companies act and given effect to cannot be
undone at a subsequent date if the conviction is set
aside by the Appellate Court. But while granting a stay
of (sic or) suspension of the order of conviction the
Court must examine the pros and cons and if it feels
satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such an
order, it may do so and in so doing it may, if it
considers it appropriate, impose such conditions as are
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1902/2018]
considered appropriate to protect the interest of the
shareholders and the business of the company."
In the present case, applicant has come up with the specific
case that he has been removed from service and removal of
service has adversely affected.
In "Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) case,
there was conviction under Section 306, 498A and the appellant
was working as LDC in the Education Department and has since
retired but was denied pension on account of the conviction order.
High Court directed that the judgment of conviction shall remain
stayed during pendency of the appeal.
I am of the view that once the consequences of conviction
are made known to the Court, the Court is entitled to stay the
conviction order.
Consequently, it is directed that the judgment of conviction
order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), remain stayed till pendency of the appeal.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/74
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
