Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJABversusNAVRAJ SINGH
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 822
- Decided
- 14 July 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The power to suspend a conviction under s.389 CrPC is limited to exceptional cases; the High Court's order suspending the conviction without reasons is set aside.
Summary
Navraj Singh, a Patwari, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (ss.7, 13(1)(d) r.w. s.13(2)) and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed the conviction and, after the appeal was admitted, applied under CrPC s.389(1) read with s.482 for suspension of the conviction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the conviction but gave no written reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether a court may suspend a conviction of a public servant under s.389, emphasizing that such power is confined to exceptional cases and must be accompanied by recorded reasons. It held that the High Court's order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing only suspension of the sentence, not the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction remained in force.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits suspension of a conviction (apart from sentence) of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the High Court was required to record reasons before suspending the conviction.
- Whether public policy precludes suspension of conviction of a corrupt public servant pending appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 389, s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 409
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 7
Subjects
Prevention of Corruption ActSection 389 CrPCsuspension of convictionpublic servantcorruptionappellate jurisdictionpublic policy
Judgment
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 924
l
A STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
I
NAVRAJ SINGH ,-
(Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2008)
JULY 14, 2008
B
[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-
tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ~·
F 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
such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to E
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 1O]
State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Anr. (2003) 12 SCC
B 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 requirement for the appellate court to record
reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of
the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the
said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his
D
own bond. The requirement of recording reason~ in writing
clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration
of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension
of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a
matter of routine. [Para 11] [931-H; 932-A,B & C]
E
2.2. The High Court while directing suspension of
conviction indicated no reasons. Thus the order of the
High Court, directing the suspension/stay of the convic-
tion as well as t~e order refusing to recall the said order
+
F cannot stand and are set aside. [Paras 12,13] [932-C & D] ....
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1075 of 2008
From the Interim Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crimi-
G
nal Misc. No. 51640/2005 in Crl. Appeal No. 1498-SB of 2002
+-
Kufdip Singh for the Appellant.
Ajit Kumar, Shikha Roy Pabbi and S.K. Sabharwal for the
Respondent. ~
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NAVRAJ SINGH 927
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
;
directing that the conviction of the respondent shall remained B
stayed during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1498- SB
of 2002.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
4. Respondent who was working as Patwari Halqa and c
was convicted by learned Special Judge, Nawanshahr, Punjab
for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short
'P.C. Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with
D
default stipulation. Against the judgment in question respondent
filed the aforesaid Criminal appeal which was admitted. After
admission of the appeal, respondent filed an application in terms
of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short the 'Code') read with Section 482 of the Code for sus-
pension of the judgment of learned Special Judge. E
5. The High Court by order dated 27.1.2005 stayed the
conviction. According to the appellant, the view expressed by
this Court in K. C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh [2001 (6) SCC
584] was not kept in view. The High Court dismissed that appli- F
cation only on the ground that the review of the order was not
permissible.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-State
that the suspension of the conviction is clearly unsustainable. It
is pointed out that the High Court noted that the Collector, G
Nawanshaher had given a notice for dispensing his services
as Patwari Halqa, Musapur.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
High Court took note of the fact that this was a case where the
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A prayer for suspension of the conviction was to be granted. Un-
less the order of conviction was suspended, the respondent
would have lost his job.
8. In State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Another
[2003(12)SCC 432], it was noted as follows:
B
Having perused the impugned order as also the judgment
of this Court in K. C. Sareen's case [2001 (6) SCC 584]
we find the High Court had no room for distinguishing the
law laid down by this Court in K. C. Sareen case supra
c even on facts. This Court in the said case held: (SCC p.
589, para 11)
"11. The legal position, therefore, is this: though the power
to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of
sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its
D exercise should be limited to very exceptional ca~e.s.
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 ramifications. of
E keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the
above legal position that we have to examine the question
as to what should be the position when a public servant is
convicted of an offence under the PC Act. No doubt when
the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge ·at
F the conviction and sentence for the offence underJhe PC
Act, the superior court should normally suspend the
sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal,
because refusal thereof would render the very appeal
otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after the
filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the
G
offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of
imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter."
(emphasis supplied)
In the said judgment of KC. Sareen's case (supra) this
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NAVRAJ SINGH 929
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Court has held that it is only in very exceptional cases that A
the court should exercise such power of stay in matters
arising out of the Act. The High Court has in the impugned
order nowhere pointed out what is the exceptional fact
which in its opinion required it to stay the conviction. The
High Court also failed to note the direction of this Court B
that it has a duty to look at all aspects including ramification
of keeping such conviction in abeyance. The High Court,
in our opinion, has not taken into conside_ration any of the
above factors while staying the conviction. It should also
be noted that the view expressed by this Court in KC. c
Sareen case (supra) was subsequently approved followed
by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Atar
Singh [2003(12) sec 434}.
9. In Union of India v. Avtar Singh & Anr. (2003(12) SCC
434) it was held as follows: D
"This appeal is directed against the impugned order of
the High Court. The respondent-accused, who has been
convicted under Section 409 IPC and Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, preferred an appeal to the
High Court, which has been entertained. On an application E
being filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the High Court has suspended the conviction
solely on the ground that the non-suspension of conviction
-t·
may entail removal of the delinquent government servant
from service." F
10. In K. C. Sareen's case (supra) it was noted as follows:
"11. The legal position, therefore, is this: though the power
to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of
sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its G
exercise should be limited to very exceptional 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 ramifications of H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the
above legal position that we have to examine the question
as to what sbould be the position when a public servant is
convicted of an offence u_nder the PC Act. No doubt when
the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge of
B the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC ~
..f-
Act, the superior court should normally suspend the
sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal,
because refusal thereof would render the very appeal .
,--
otiose unless such appt~al could be heard soon after the \.
c filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the
offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of
imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter.
12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a .._
monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started
.
I-'
D grappling even the institutions created for the protection
of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted
and irnp.3ded from gripping the normal and orderly
functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative,
executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public
E servants could even paralyse the functioning of such
institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity.
Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner rt-
momentum to cripple the social order if such men are
allowed to continue to manage and operate public
F institutions. When a public servant is found guilty of ;.-
corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted
by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he 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
G
issues and findings made against such public servants
once again should not even temporarily absolve him from ~~
such findings. If such a public serJant becomes entitled to
hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he
is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of
H
...... STATE. OF PUNJAB v. NAVRAJ SINGH 931
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest A
which suffers and sometimes, even irreparably. When a
public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to
continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale
of the other persons manning such office, and consequently
that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the B
people in such public institutions besides demoralising
the other honest public servants who would 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 c
of the conviction, the fallout would be. one of shaking the
system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should
not aid the public servant who stands convicted for
corruption charges to hold only (sic) public office until he
is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at
D
the appellate or revisional level. It is a ctifferent matter if a
corrupt public officer could continue to" hold such public
office even without the help of a court order suspending
the conviction.
13. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary E
for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If
so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction
is on a corruption charge against a public servant the
appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend
. ' the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal F
even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would
be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant
is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping
the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal
ofthe appeal or revision."
G
11. In State of Haryana v. Hasmat [2004(6) SCC 175] it
.-....+
was noted as follows:
"6. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of
execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of
H
j
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail
and suspension of sentence. One of the essential
ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the
appellate court to record reasons in writing for ·ordering
suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
B If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be
released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of
recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there
has: tq be careful consideration ·of the relevant aspects
and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant
c of bc:iil should not be passed as a matter of routine."
. 12. It is to be noted that learned Single Judge while. direct-
ing suspension of conviction indicated no reasons.
· 13. Above being the position the order of the learned Single
Judge, directing the suspension/stay of the conviction as well
0
as.the order refusing to recall the said order cannot stand and
are set aside.
14. Appeal is allowed.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
i- '
(
I
I
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Prevention of Corruption Act"Sign in to search