K.C. SAREEN versus C.B.I., CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 02-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.C. SAREEN 
v. 
C.B.I., CHANDIGARH 
AUGUST 2, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 389 and 401. 
Sentence-Power of Court to suspend-Power of court to suspend 
C conviction-Held not alien to Section 389(1)-But should be exercised in 
exceptional cases-Mere filing of appeal is no ground to suspend conviction-
public servant-Conviction on corruption charges-Appellate court should 
not suspend conviction even if sentence is suspended 
D 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 13(2) 
Corruption-Conviction of public servant-Appeal-Appellate court should 
not suspend conviction even if sentence is suspended-Corruption amongst 
public servants-Deprecation of-Need for control of corruption emphasised. 
E 
The appellant, an officer of the Punjab National Bank, was convicted 
under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 
120, 201and420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Consequently, the authorities 
of the Bank dismissed him from service. During the pendency of appeal the 
High Court suspended sentence of the appellant The appellant unsuccessfully 
moved the High Court for suspension of his conviction also on the grounds 
F that (i) his appeal in the High Court was not likely to be heard for ten years 
which would defeat the ends of justice; and (ii) his conviction was based on 
very slender reasoning and consequently there was a fair chance of his 
acquittal. The High Court held that it was not a fit case to invoke the powers 
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to stay the 
G operation of the impugned order of conviction. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When conviction is on a corruption charge against a public 
servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order . 
H 
of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of 
224 
K.C. SAREEN v. C.B.I. 
225 
imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the A 
convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of 
keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal 
or revision. [231-F-Gl 
2. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 
the powers of the appellate court regarding suspension of execution of the B 
sentence or order appealed against during the pendency of the appeal. The 
same powers are invokable by the revisional court also during the pendency 
of the revision, under Section 401 of the Code. That is obviously not a reason 
for holding that the trial of the case could reach its culmination only when 
the revisional proceedings end. [229-C-DI 
C 
3. Though the power to suspend an order of conviction apart from the 
order of sentence, is not al:en to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should 
be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files 
an appeal in challenge of the conviction court should not suspend the operation 
of the order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects including D 
the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. [230-D-El 
4. No doubt when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge 
of the convictioh and sentence for the offence under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, the superior court should normally suspend the sentence of E 
imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof would 
render the very appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after 
the filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under 
Prevention of Corruption Act, de hors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel 
thereto, is a different matter. [230-F-G I 
5. When a public servant is found guilty of corruption after a judicial 
adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that 
he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. 
The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain 
F 
his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public G 
servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such 
findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and 
to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings • 
by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which 
suffers and so

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.