STATE OF PUNJAB versus DEEPAK MATTU

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
V. 
f 
DEEPAK MATTU 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389-Conviction of public 
-~-
servant under Prevention of Corruption Act-Special Court allowed 
c suspension of conviction during pendency of appeal -High Court 
dismissed application for vacation of suspension-Correctness of-
Held: Not correct-Power to suspend order of conviction to be 
exercised only in exceptional cases-Court required to look at all 
aspects including ramification of keeping such conviction in abeyance. 
D 
Interlocutory order: Modification of its own interlocutory order 
by High Court-Scope of-Discussed-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
~ 
1973-s.362. 
Prosecution case was that the respondent who was public 
E servant was proceeded against in a case under Prevention of 
Corruption Act. He was sentenced to 1 Yz years RI. He filed appeal. 
In the said appeal, an application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. was filed by him 
for suspension of conviction. Special Court allowed the application 
and suspended the conviction during pendency of appeal on the 
y-
F ground that it would take long time to decide the appeal and there 
were good points to argue. High Court dismissed the application for 
vacation of stay of conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the High Court 
being aware of the decisions of this Court holding that ordinarily the 
G suspension of conviction should not be granted, must be held to have 
committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment. 
_,Jo 
The respondent contended that he being a government servant 
and he having been convicted only for a period of 1 Yz years, the High 
Court cannot be said to have committed any error in suspending the 
H 
90 
) 
STATE v. DEEP AK MATTU 
91 
judgment of conviction. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Po!lsible delay in disposal of the appeal and arguable 
points therein by itself may not be sufficient to grant suspension of 
a sentence. The High Court while passing the order merely noticed B 
some points which could be raised in the appeal. The ground~ so 
taken do not suggest that the respondent was proceeded against by 
the State, malafide or any bad faith. [Para 7) [96-B, CJ 
KC Sareen v. CB.I, Chandigarh, [2001) 6 SCC 584, relied ou. 
2.1. Though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart C 
from the order of sentence, is not alien to s. 389(1) of the Cr.P .C., 
its exercise should be limited to very exceptional ca~es. rilerely 
because the convicted person files an appeal in challenge of the 
conviction the 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. 
[Para 7) [96-D-E] 
2.2. 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 E 
is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate 
or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go 
into the issues and findings made against aim should not even 
temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant 
becomes entitled to hold public office and continues to do official acts 
F 
until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of 
suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest which suffers 
and sometimes, evefl. irreparably. When a public servant who is 
convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office, 
it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, G 
and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence 
of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the 
other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or 
subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are 
compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on H 
' 
}.._ ~ 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A account of the suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one 
of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court 
should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption 
charges to hold public office until he is exonerated after conducting 
a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. 
B 
[Para 7) [97-B, G] 
State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Anr., [2003) 1

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