Ashok Kumar Mujoo vs State of Jharkhand

Deokinandan Prasad, J.—This application (I.A. No. 227 of 2003) has been filed u/s 389 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the appellant praying therein to stay the execution of sentence dated 23.12.2002, whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted u/s 120B/409 IPC and Section 5(2) corresponding to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year u/s 120B IPC and two years u/s 409 IPC whereas rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948. He was also awarded a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default three months simple imprisonment. However, sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in brief as stated that the accused S.R. Sharma, Project Officer, Lapanga Colliery and Shri A.K. Mujoo, Superintendent of Mines, Lapanga Colliery, C.C.L. (Appellant) were parties to a criminal conspiracy alongwith others for misappropriation of coal weighing 53,354 M.T. which was produced in the Lapanga Colliery during the financial year 1985-86. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy both accused persons were personally responsible for the misappropriation of the said coal, which is a property of Government and on such information, the stock of coal of Lapanga Colliery was physically verified by a team of the officers of C.C.L. on 1.10.1985. During the said verification, a shortage of 40605.60 MT of coal was found between the book balance and the ground balance. On this report, a team of officers of Coal India also verified the stock on 1.11.1985 and a further shortage of 11748.40 M.T. of coal was detected by them. The total shortage of coal on 1.11.1985 was found to the tune of 52,354 M.T. worth value to the tune of Rs''. 1,23,03190/-. Accordingly, the case was registered. The trial begun and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the Special Judge convicted the appellant, in the manner as stated above.

Mr. Delip Jerath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that though earlier a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant for staying the conviction/sentence in this appeal, which was rejected by order date 27.2.2003 but now the position has been changed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, C.C.L. has issued a show cause calling upon the appellant as to why major penalty including dismissal from services as per Rule 27.1(ii) of C.D.A. Rules 1979 of C.I.L. should not be imposed on him in terms of Rule 34.1 of C.D.A. Rules. It is further submitted that the appellant has served the CCL for about 30 years having good reputation and if sentence is not stayed, the appellant will be put in dismissal from services.

On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI contended before me that the application filed earlier by the appellant was already rejected after considering all the pros and cons as well as the appellant has been already availing the opportunity of bail so the question of stay of sentence does not arise.

The learned counsel also relied upon the ease of K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh, and submitted that the suspension of order of conviction/sentence during the pendency of appeal is not permissible when a public servant who is directly involved and convicted of corruption charges.

Obviously, this appeal has already been admitted by order dated 16.1.2003 and appellant has been availing the opportunity of bail in the matter.

From going through the Annexure-8 to the application at flag "A" it appears that the appellant has been called upon to show cause as to why major penalty including the dismissal from the services should not be imposed on him and the said letter is dated 4.3.2003. Annexure-9 to the said application is dated 10.2.2003 indicating that the learned Advocate had written a letter to the General Manager (HRD), Western Coalfields Ltd, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur stating therein that the appellant has already been availing the opportunity of bail.

No doubt, the appeal has already been filed by appellant, which is pending for disposal. Though, show cause notice, Annexure-8 has been issued but there is nothing to show as to what action has been taken pursuant to the said notice. In a case of serious nature, like Corruption charges, the suspension of the order of conviction during the pendency of appeal cannot be found to be permissible. The whole matter under the appeal is subject to consideration and scrutiny of the Superior Court when the evidence collected during trial shall be looked into and scrutinized in detail. It is well settled that merely because the convicted person filed an appeal in challenge of conviction, the Court should not suspend the operation of order of conviction. Mere issuance of the show cause notice does not make out a prima facie case, at this stage, for suspension of sentence. Thus, after admission of appeal, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court is kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the present application is devoid of any merit.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, there appears no merit in this Interlocutory Application No, 227 of 2003, which is accordingly dismissed.