Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. In State of T.N. v. A. Jaganathan, (1996) 5 SCC 329 the respondents were government employees and they had been convicted and sentenced for various offences and the Appellate Court had confirmed the orders. The respondents filed a revision before the High Court and the High Court allowed their application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of convictions as well as the sentences on consideration of the fact that the respondents will lose the meager stipend, if the prayer for suspending the conviction during the pendency of the revisions is not granted. In appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rama Narang case had no application to the facts of the cases. In Rama Narang the conviction and sentences both were suspended on the reasoning that if the conviction and sentences are not suspended the damage would be caused which could not be undone if ultimately the revision of the appellants of that case was allowed. But in the case of Jaganathan, in the event the revisions against their conviction and sentences are allowed by the High Court the damage, if any, caused to the respondents with regard to payment of stipend etc. can well be revived and made good to the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the High Court did not consider at all the moral conduct of the respondents inasmuch as respondent Jaganathan who was the Police Inspector attached to Erode Police Station had been convicted under Sections 392 I.P.C. - i.e., robbery, which in punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 14 years, and 466 IPC - forgery of Court record, which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years, while the other respondents who are also public servants had been convicted under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act which carry the maximum punishment of imprisonment for 7 years. In such a case the discretionary power to suspend the conviction either under Sections 389(1) or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not have been exercised.