STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, MUMBAI versus BALAKRISHNA DATTATRYA KUMBHAR

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 15-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 601 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI, ANTI 
CORRUPTION BRANCH, MUMBAI 
v. 
BALAKRISHNA DATTATRYA KUMBHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1648 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 15, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 389(1) -
C 
Suspension of conviction - Conviction of public servant uls. 
13(2) rlw s. 13(1 )(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Pursuant 
thereto show-cause notice from employer for removal from 
service - Application for suspension of conviction - Allowed 
by High court - On appeal, held: Power to suspend the 
D 
conviction can be exercised only in exceptional case - High 
Court was not justified in suspending the conviction in a case 
involving corruption - Such order could not be passed to save 
the job of the appellant - It was not such a case where 
damage, if done, could not be undone - Prevention of E 
Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) rlw s.13(1)(e). 
The respondent was convicted u/s. 13(2) r/w s. 
13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant 
thereto, he was put under suspension and show cause 
notice was issued for his dismissal from service in view 
F 
of provisions of r. 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The 
respondent filed an application u/s. 389(1) Cr.P.C. for 
suspension of his conviction during pendency of his 
appeal. The application was allowed. Hence the present 
appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellate court in an exceptional case, 
601 
H 
602 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A may put the conviction in abeyance along with the 
_sentence, but such power must be exercised with great 
circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the 
applicant must satisfy the court as regards the evil that 
is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not 
B suspended. The court has to consider all the facts as are 
pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and 
examine whether the facts and circumstances involved 
in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of 
action by it. The court additionally, must record in writing, 
c its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the 
order of'conviction cannot be granted only on the ground 
that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not 
done. [Para 12) [608-G-H; 609-A-B] 
-
2. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but 
D also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, 
and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in 
itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in 
the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have 
passed the order of sentence, in a case involving 
E corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage 
if done, could not be undone as the employee/respondent 
if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential 
benefits. [Para 14) [609-E-G] 
F 
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Ors. (1995) 2 
SCC 513:1995 (1) SCR 456; State of Tamil Nadu v. A. 
Jaganathan AIR 1996 SC 2449:1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 572 ; 
K.C. Sareen v. Central Bureau of/nvestigation, Chandigarh 
AIR 2001 SC 3320: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 224; State of 
G Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1188; Union 
of India v. Afar Singh and Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 434; Ravikant 
S. Patil v. Savabhouma S. Bagali (2007) 1 SCC 673:2006(8) 
Suppl. SCR 1156 ; Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab 
and Anr. AIR 2007 SC 1003: 2007 (1) SCR 1143; State of 
H 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. C.B.I., v. BALAKRISHNA 603 
DATTATRYA KUMBHAR 
Punjab v. Navraj Singh AIR 2008 SC 2962: 2008 (10) SCR A 
924; CBI, New Delhi v. Roshan Lal Saini AIR 2009 SC 755 
- relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1995(1) SCR 456 
Relied on 
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 572 Relied on 
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 224 Relied on 
AIR 2004 SC 1188 
Relied on 
(2003) .12 sec 434 
Relied on 
2006(8) Suppl. SCR 1156 Relied on 
2007 (1) SCR 1143 
Relied on 
2008 (10) SCR 924 
AIR 2009 SC 755 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Para 6 
Para 7 
Para 8 
Para 9 
Para 9 
Para 10 
Para 11 
Para 11 
Para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
B 
c 
D 
No. 1648 of 2012. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.04.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 157 
of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Prakriti Purnima, B. Krishna Prasad 
F 
for the Appellant. 
Sushil Karanjkar, Nikhilesh Kumar, K.N. Rai for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This Criminal Appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.