LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI versus M.N. SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,__
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 18
~
A
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI
v.
M.N. SHARMA
(Criminal Appeal No.· 1127 of 2008)
JULY 21, 2008
...
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
,.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss.389 and 482.'
c
Suspension of conviction - Special Judge convicting
accused employ~e for committing offences. punishable un-
ders.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. - Con-
viction· stayed .by High Court - Correctnes{3 of - Held: High
D
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_
s.13(2) ~Penal.Code, 1860 - s.120-B ..
1--
Responderlt, an employee, was convicted by the
E 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. Respon-
dent filed an appeal which was admitted. During pendency
F 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.onvic-
....
tion. Hence the present appeal.
G
Appellant contended that the suspension of the con-
viction 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-
)<:-
pension of the conviction was to be granted and unless
the order of conviction was suspended, the respondent
H
18
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI
19
v. M.N. SHARMA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
would have lo_st his job.
A
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Single Judge of the High Court while di-
recting suspension of conviction indicated no reasons.
Hence, the order of the Single Judge of the High Court B
~
directing the suspension/stay of the conviction cannot
stand and is set aside. (Paras 10 & 11) [25-A & B]
K. C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584;
State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan and Another (2003) 12 SCC c
432; Union of India vs. Atar Singh (2003) 12 SCC 434 and
State of Haryana vs. Hasmat (2004) 6 SCC 175 - referred to.
2. The High qourt to take up the matter and dispose
of the appeal as early as practicable. (Para 12) [25 D]
(2001) 6 SCC 584; Referred to 6, 7 ,8 & 9
D
j
(2003) 12 sec 432;
(2003) 12 sec 434;
(2004) s sec 175
E
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1127 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.2.2006 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 813/2005
F
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Vikas Sharma, AmitAnand Tiwari, B.K.
Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant.
Uday U. Lalit, Ashutosh Lohia, Gaurav Agrawal and Jyoti
Mendiratta for the Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court were delivered
·~
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directing that the
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A conviction of the respondent shall remain stayed during the pen-
dency of Criminal Appeal No.813 of 2005
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent who. was working as Sub-Registrar,
B Tehasildar and was convicted by learn~d Special Judge, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections}
and 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act') and Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to un-
C dergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, 2 years
and one year respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with
default stipulation. Against the judgment in question respondent
filed the aforesaid Criminal appeal which was admitted. After
admission of the appeal, respondent filed an· application in
o terms of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short the 'Code') read with Sectiun 482 of the Code
for suspension of the judgment of learned Special Judge.
The High Court by order dated 3.2.2006 stayed the con-
viction. According to the appellant, the view expressed by this
E Court in KC. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh [2001(6) SCC 584]
was not kept in view. The High Court dismissed that applica-
tion.
4. It is submittedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.