S.K. Garg vs C.B.I.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. T.A. Khan on the modification application No. 810/2014, it is apparent that he wants the order of conviction to be kept in abeyance.

Heard on the modification application, whereby the suspension of the conviction is being sought from this Court by way of exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. The appellant/applicant Mr. S.K. Garg was convicted by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (C.B.I) on dated 12.11.2013 under the Anti-Corruption Act. He was awarded one-year rigorous imprisonment nay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence of Section 13(2) inter alia other provisions of the Act. He was also found guilty for the offence u/s 420 of IPC and again one year rigorous imprisonment nay the fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He was granted interim bail up to filing of the appeal u/s 389(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Judge. And the bail was granted by this Court during the pendency of the appeal but only his sentence was kept in abeyance not ''conviction''.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the precedent of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and Others, . I feel that the said judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court, as relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable here while considering the question of suspension of sentence. The Hon''ble Apex Court never laid down any mandate to the Appellate Court that while exercising the powers u/s 389(1) Cr.P.C. the conviction of the appellant should also kept in abeyance. It was held that only in a very fit case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court still not debarred in exercising the plenary powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to keep the conviction in abeyance. In the case (Supra), it was in order to keep the interest of shareholders and the business of the company. The order of conviction was suspended.

In the instant case, I do not feel any fitness or the vast interest of the society at large to keep the conviction in abeyance and also feel rather the interest of the society is other way round. If the conviction of the appellant will be kept in abeyance in such ante-corruption case, then an official/officer of a premier company like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C.) will not get a sound signal from the judicial system.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even after passing the conviction order, the appellant has been awarded some appreciation letters by the company. If it is so, then I feel that the job of the appellant is not going to be affected adversely by not keeping the conviction order in abeyance. It can be added that in the order dated 30.04.2014 whereby the sentence was kept in abeyance, the appellant was given a liberty to move an urgency application for early hearing of this appeal on merits. If the appellant feels that the learned Trial Judge has wrongly punished him then in order to maintain his unblemished service record, he has not been prevented to get appeal finally decided.

With the above observations, this modification application is rejected.