CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI v. M.N. SHARMA

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 18

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI v. M.N. SHARMA.pdf

Judgment text

,__ [2008] 11 S. C. R. 18 ~ CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI v. M. N. SHARMA (Criminal Appeal No. · 1127 of 2008) ... JULY 21, 2008 ,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 389 and 482. ' Suspension of conviction - Special Judge convicting accused employ~e for committing offences. punishable unders. 13(1)(d) r/ws. 3(2) of 1988A9'~and s. 1208 IPC~Accused filing application in terms of s. 389(1) rlw s. 482 Cr. PC. - Conviction· stayed . by High Court - Correctnes{3 of - Held: High Court while directing suspension of conviction indicated no reasons - Hence order of the High. Coμrt not sustainable and ~ set aside -Prevention of Corruption_ Act, 1988-s 13(1)(-d) rlw A_ 1-s. 13(2) ~Penal. Code, 1860 - s. 120-B.. Responderlt, an employee, was convicted by the Special Judge for com'mitung offences punishabfe under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with s. 13(2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ands.

120-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment accordingly. Respondent filed an appeal which was admitted. During pendency of the appeal, respondent filed an application in terms of s. 389(1) Cr. P. C; r~ad with s. 482 of the Code for suspen- .... sion of the judgment. The High Court stayed the c. onviction. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that the suspension of the conviction is clearly unsustainable. . . . . ' ~ I Respondent submitted that the High Court took note of the fact that this was a case where the prayer for sus- ) n during the pe'ndency of the appeal even if . the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It wouldbe ~sublime public policy tha(the. convicted public ser\iant" is kept under disability of the convictiqn in :spite of keeping the sentence of. imprisonment in abeyLlnce·til! the disposal of the appeaf·or revision_;, · · · · ' ;; . 9. In ;State of Haryana v. Hasmat [2004(6. ) ,,sec 175] it · was noted as follows: . · ·· "6.

' Sect:ion 389 of the Code deals with suspension of . executiohof ~~htence pending)he:~ppeal. and ·re1ease of ,th. e appellant ·an . bail. There is a distinction between bail and· suspension of sentence. One of the ·essential . Gingredients of Section 389 is the requirement fot the appeilate court to record reasons· in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinem~nt, the said court can dlre~t that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful co. nsideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing ·suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. " 10. It is to be noted that learned Single Judge while direct- 8 -+ ing suspension of conviction indicated no reasons. 11.

Above being the position the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the suspension/stay of the conviction cannot stand and is set aside. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that hearing of the cases was posted to 22. 5. 2008. Since the cases of both M. N. Sharma and Roshan Lal Saini were not posted, the matter has been adjourned to 22. 9. 2008. We requestthe High Court to take up the matter and dispose of the appeal"as early as practicable, preferably by end of 2008·. · ; 13. Appeal is allowed. S. K. S. Appeal allowed. ). . I