Rajasthan High Court
Gopendra Kumar S/O Madholal vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Stay Application No.1585/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 452/2021
Gopendra Kumar S/o Madholal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident
Of Kunjela Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
05/03/2021
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 22.02.2021 passed by learned
Special Judge, Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005,
Karauli in Sessions Case No.136/2018 (135/2016) (126/2016)
(CIS No.136/2018) titled as State Vs. Gopendra Kumar be stayed.
It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is ticket collector in the Department of Railway. If the
conviction of the applicant is not stayed, enquiry will be initiated
against him and his services will be terminated. So, the conviction
order passed by the learned Court below be stayed.
(2 of 4)
Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on "Rama
Narang vs. Ramesh Narang" (1995) 2 SCC 513 and "Jagdish
Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan" 2013 SCC onLine Raj. 450,
"Bhagwan Singh vs. State" 2009 WLC 575, "Shivlal vs. State of
Rajasthan" 2007 (3) RCC 1039, "Murarilal vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors." 2009 (2) WLC 345 and "Navjot Singh Siddhu vs. State of
Punjab" (2007) 2 SCC 574.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
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
(3 of 4)
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
considered appropriate to protect the interest
of the shareholders and the business of the
company."
In the present case, applicant has come with the specific
case that he wants to stay the conviction order passed by the
Court below against him because enquiry may be initiated against
him and his services are liable to be terminated.
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.
(4 of 4)
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 22.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge,
Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, Karauli ,
shall remain stayed till pendency of the appeal.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/110
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
