STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusA. JAGANATHAN

A                          STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                                         v.
                               A. JAGANATHAN

                                  JULY 15, 1996

B               [FAJZAN UDDIN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

          Code of Climinal Procedure, 1973: Sections 389(1) and 482.

         Appellate Court--Power lo suspend conviction and senlenc~elevant
C factors f01~T1ifling malle1~ should not be taken into account-Damage
    caused to accused could not be undone if he succeeds in appeql or
    revision-In such a case discretion to suspend sentence and conviction should
    be cxercise~Acwsed public sC1vants---Conviction under sectio11s 392, 218
    and 466 !PC as well as Preve11lio11 of Comtplion Act-Sentence---Revision-
    Suspension of sentence and conviction during the pendency of revision-High
D   Court order--Ground of loss of stipends to accused-Moral co11duct of
    accused persons not taken into account-Held in such circun1stances High
    Cowt should not have exercised its discretio11G1y power--Order to the extent
    of suspensio11 of co11viction set aside-Order with regard lo suspensio11 of
    sente11ce upheld.

E        Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 513, held
    inapplicable.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 725-72}1, of 1996.

F         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.95, 19.10.95 and 18.10.95 of
    the Madras High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 2890/95 3677/95, 3517/95 and
    3516/95 in Crl.R.C. No. 23/94, Crl.A. No. 585/95, 530/94 and 589/93.

         S. Siva Subramanian, K.V. Venkataraman, V. Krishnamurthy, R.
    Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, T. Raja and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the
G   appearing Parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

H         Counsel for parties are heard.
                                       572
                       STATI.ov. AJAGANATHAN                          573

     The respondents in these four appeals are the Government               A
employees. All the four were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Erode
for various criminal offences and sentenced to undergo various sentences.
The said conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sessions Judge/Spe-
cial Judge, Erode. The respondents then approached the High Court in
Criminal Revision accompanied with an application under Section 389(1) B
Cr.P.C. for suspension of convictions as well as the sentences. The High
Court after considering the ambit and scope of the provisions contained in
Sections 374 and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
relevant provisions of Law and relying on the decision of this Court
rendered in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, [1995] 2 S.C.C.
513, took the view that for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the    c
appellate Court, the conviction or order of sentence can be suspended
during the pendency of the same. The High Court also took the view that
the power of the appellate Court or the High Court to suspend the
conviction or sentence is always inherent and can be exercised at any stage,
subject to the condition that the appellate Court should be approached and D
satisfied with the reasonings to be recorded in writing and further, if any
one wants to stop the proceedings which have been initiated for dis- .
qualification or removal from service or reduction in rank in respect of the
public servant one has to look into the moral conduct very much involved
in such a case and only when the Court is satisfied with such conduct, then E
the remedy provided under different statute cannot at all be stopped. After .
taking the aforesaid view and on consideration of the fact that the respon-
dents will loose the meagre stipend, if the prayer for suspending the
conviction during the pendency of the revisions is not granted, passed the
impugned orders suspending the conviction as well as the seniences
awarded to the respondents. It is against these orders that the State has
                                                                              F
filed these appeals. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the state is that the High Court has passed the impugned orders relying on
the decision in Rama Narang's case (supra) wherein this Court took the
view that in appropriate cases the conviction and sentences can be
suspended in exercise of powers under Section 462 .Cr.P.C. After going G
through the decision referred to above and the facts of the present case
we find that the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the
cases before us. In Rama Narang's case (supra) the conviction and senten-
ces both were suspended on the reasoning that if the conviction and
sentences are not suspended the damage would be caused which could not H
    574                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A be un-done if ultimately the revision of the appellants of that case was
  allowed. But in the present case, we find that in the event the revicions
  against their conviction and sentences are allowed by the High Court the
  damage, if any, caused to the respondents with regard to payment of
  stipend etc. can well be revived and made good to the respondents. If such
B trifling matters are taken into co11sideration, we think, then every conviction
  will have to be suspended pending appeal or revision involving the slightest
  disadvantage to a convict. That being so the facts of the decision relied on
  have no application to the present case. This apart, the High Court though
  made an observation but did not consider at all the moral conduct of the
  respondents inasmuch as respondent Jaganathan who was the Police ln-
C speetor attached to Erode Police Station has been convicted under Sec-
  tions 392, 218 and 466 !PC, while the other respondents who are also public
  servants have been convicted under the provision of Prevention of Corrup-
  tion Act. In such a case the discretionary power lo suspend the conviction
  either under Sectiom 389(1) or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not have
D been exercised. The orders impugned thus cannot be sustained.
         For the reasons stated above the impugned orders are set aside to
    the extent of suspension of conviction. The order with regard to the
    suspension of sentences, however, is maintained. The appeals are disposed
    of accordingly.
E
    T.N.A.                                                 Appeals disposed of.