STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus A. JAGANATHAN

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 15-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
A. JAGANATHAN 
JULY 15, 1996 
B 
[FAJZAN UDDIN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Climinal Procedure, 1973: Sections 389(1) and 482. 
Appellate Court--Power lo suspend conviction and senlenc~elevant 
C factors f01~T1ifling malle1~ should not be taken into account-Damage 
caused to accused could not be undone if he succeeds in appeql or 
revision-In such a case discretion to suspend sentence and conviction should 
be cxercise~Acwsed public sC1vants---Conviction under sectio11s 392, 218 
and 466 !PC as well as Preve11lio11 of Comtplion Act-Sentence---Revision-
Suspension of sentence and conviction during the pendency of revision-High 
D Court order--Ground of loss of stipends to accused-Moral co11duct of 
accused persons not taken into account-Held in such circun1stances High 
Cowt should not have exercised its discretio11G1y power--Order to the extent 
of suspensio11 of co11viction set aside-Order with regard lo suspensio11 of 
sente11ce upheld. 
E 
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 513, held 
inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 725-72}1, of 1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.95, 19.10.95 and 18.10.95 of 
the Madras High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 2890/95 3677/95, 3517/95 and 
3516/95 in Crl.R.C. No. 23/94, Crl.A. No. 585/95, 530/94 and 589/93. 
S. Siva Subramanian, K.V. Venkataraman, V. Krishnamurthy, R. 
Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, T. Raja and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the 
G appearing Parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
Counsel for parties are heard. 
572 
STATI.ov. AJAGANATHAN 
573 
The respondents in these four appeals are the Government A 
employees. All the four were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Erode 
for various criminal offences and sentenced to undergo various sentences. 
The said conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sessions Judge/Spe-
cial Judge, Erode. The respondents then approached the High Court in 
Criminal Revision accompanied with an application under Section 389(1) 
Cr.P.C. for suspension of convictions as well as the sentences. The High 
Court after considering the ambit and scope of the provisions contained in 
Sections 374 and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 
relevant provisions of Law and relying on the decision of this Court 
rendered in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, [1995] 2 S.C.C. 
513, took the view that for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the 
appellate Court, the conviction or order of sentence can be suspended 
during the pendency of the same. The High Court also took the view that 
B 
c 
the power of the appellate Court or the High Court to suspend the 
conviction or sentence is always inherent and can be exercised at any stage, 
subject to the condition that the appellate Court should be approached and D 
satisfied with the reasonings to be recorded in writing and further, if any 
one wants to stop the proceedings which have been initiated for dis- . 
qualification or removal from service or reduction in rank in respect of the 
public servant one has to look into the moral conduct very much involved 
in such a case and only when the Court is satisfied with such conduct, then E 
the remedy provided under different statute cannot at all be stopped. After . 
taking the aforesaid view and on consideration of the fact that the respon-
dents will loose the meagre stipend, if the prayer for suspending the 
conviction during the pendency of the revisions is not granted, passed the 
impugned orders suspending the conviction as well as the seniences 
awarded to the respondents. It is against these orders that the State has 
filed these appeals. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for 
F 
the state is that the High Court has passed the impugned orders relying on 
the decision in Rama Narang's case (supra) wherein this Court took the 
view that in appropriate cases the conviction and sentences can be 
suspended in exercise of powers under Section 462 .Cr.P.C. After going G 
through the decision referred to above and the facts of the present case 
we find that the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the 
cases before us. In Rama Narang's case (supra) the conviction and senten-
ces both were suspended on the reasoning that if the conviction and 
sentences are not suspended the damage would be caused which could not H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A be un-done if ultimate

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