STATE OF PUNJAB versus NAVRAJ SINGH

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 14-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 924 
l 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
NAVRAJ SINGH 
I ,-
(Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 14, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 389 - Power under, for suspension of conviction and 
c sentence for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act - Ex-
ercise - Scope of- Held: Exercise of powf:Jr under s. 389 should 
be limited to exceptional cases - Merely because the appeal 
.... 
by co(lvicted person is admitted, Court should not suspend 
the order of conviction - Court has duty to look at all aspects 
D including ramifications of keeping such conviction in abey-
r 
ance and record reasons for ordering suspension - On facts, 
since High Court while directing suspension of conviction did 
not record reasons in impugned order, the said order is set 
aside - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d) 
E 
r.w. s.13(2). 
Respondent was working as Patwari Halqa and was 
convicted for offences punishable under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) 
r.w. s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sen-
F 
tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
~· 
3 years. 
Respondent filed appeal which was admitted. After 
admission of the appeal, respondent filed an application 
in terms of s.389(1) r.w. s.482 Cr.P.C. for ·suspension of 
G the judgment of special judge. The High Court stayed 
the conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
";-
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though the power to suspend an order of 
H 
924 
,._
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NAVRAJ SINGH 
925 
., 
conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to 
A 
s. 389(1) Cr.P.C., its exercise should be limited to very ex-
ceptional cases. Merely 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 the ramifi-
B 
cations. of keeping such conviction in abeyance. No doubt 
when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in chal-
lenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence un-
der the PC Act, the superior court should normally sus-
pend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the c 
appeal, because refusal thereof would render the very ap-
peal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after 
the filing of the appeal. When a public servant is found guilty 
of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process con-
ducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he 
D 
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 his challenge and to go into 
the issues and findings made against such public servants 
once again should not even temporarily absolve him from 
E 
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 sometimes, even irreparably. When a 
___.. 
public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed 
F 
to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale 
of the other persons manning such office, and conse-
quently that would erode the already shrunk confidence 
of the people in such public institutions besides 
demoralising the other honest public servants who would iG 
~ 
either be the colleagues or subordinates· of the convicted 
person. If honest public servants are compelled to take 
orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the 
suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of 
""" 
shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the 
H 
• 
11
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
court should not aid the public servant who stands con-
' ,. 
victed_ for corruption charges to hold public office until he 
is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the 
appellate or revisional level. [Para 1 O] 
B 
State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 
432; Union oflndia v. AvtarSingh &Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 434; 
State of Haryana v. Hasmat (2004) 6 SCC 175 - referred to. 
~·· 
2.1 
S.389 Cr.P.C. deals with suspension of execu-
tion of sentence pending the appeal and release of the 
c appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and 
suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients 
of s.389 is the re

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