Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—This an application for suspension of conviction order dated 2.3.2007. The appeal filed against the said order stands already admitted and sentence of imprisonment stands already suspended on March 13, 2007.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after the conviction order a memo Annexure A-2 dated 14.3.2007 has been served upon the Appellant wherein the General Manager, "Telecom, on the basis of the conviction order, placing reliance on Rule 40 of the BSNL CDA Rules 2006 formed an opinion that the Appellant is not a fit person to be retained in service on the ground of his conduct, which has led to his conviction.

It is urged by the learned Counsel that irreparable loss will be suffered by the Appellant in case dismissal order is passed on the basis of conviction order, which is subject matter of the appeal. It is also submitted that the Appellant has got five daughters and a large family to look after.

After considering the ratio of the judgments in KC Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, 2001(3) All India Cri LR (S.C.) 838, Union of India (UOI) Vs. Atar Singh and Another, , State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Anr. 2004 (1) All IC LR (S.C.) 870 and K. Bhagyanath v. State, 2003 (1) AIC LR (Del.) 1018, I am of the opinion that discretion to suspend the conviction has been granted u/s 389 Code of Criminal Procedure The power for suspending of conviction has to be sparingly exercised in exceptional cases and discretion should not be exercised in a mechanical manner without looking at all the aspects including the ramification keeping such sentence in abeyance.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances mentioned herein above, I deem it appropriate to suspend the conviction of the Appellant u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 during the pendency of the appeal.