Full Judgment
CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 Date of decision:
12. 09.2013 Niranjan Singh ..... Applicant-petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab. R.P. NAGRATH, J.Prayer made in the instant application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for suspension of conviction of the applicant-petitioner during the pendency of instant revision petition.
2. The facts of the matter are that the applicant-petitioner was tried of offences under Sections 420 and 465 read with Section 120-B IPC, along with others, and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 465 read with Section 120-B IPC.
3. The convicts including the applicant preferred separate appeals which were dismissed by Appellate Court on 9.5.2012. Criminal Revision against concurrent findings of conviction is pending before this Court and the same was admitted on 29.11.2012 and sentence of imprisonment was also suspended during pendency of the revision.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned State counsel on the prayer for suspension of conviction and minutely gone through the judgments of the Courts below and trial Court record.
5. The judgment of Appellate Court is dated 9.5.2012. The applicant was working as Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board and due to his conviction in this case, he was suspended from service w.e.f. 9.5.2012 and thereafter vide order dated 30.8.2012, he has been dismissed from service. It is averred that the applicant joined service of the Department on 9.4.1979 and remained in service for about 33 years without any adverse report against him. It is contended that the applicant has lost his job due to his conviction, for which prayer is made for suspension of conviction, because the petitioner is due to retire on 31.1.2017. The basic ground set-up is that prima facie there was no evidence for recording his conviction.
6. Learned applicant's counsel vehemently contended that Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -3- name of applicant did not figure in the FIR and he was involved simply on the disclosure statement made by some of the co-accused which cannot be admissible against the applicant. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon judgments of this Court in (i) Tarsem Singh Vs. State, Chandigarh Administration, 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831; (ii) Ram Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 201 and (iii) Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 531.
7. The later two judgments Ram Singh and others and Balbir Singh (supra) cannot be helpful to the applicant because in Ram Singh's case conviction was for offence under Sections 148/149/323/325/326 and 506 IPC. In Balbir Singh's case, conviction recorded against the petitioner was under Sections 406/498-A IPC and the petitioner was attributed only simple injury for attracting Section 323 IPC which did not involve moral turpitude.
8. Adverting to the facts of instant case, one Paramjit Singh Jandu, pretending himself to be Director-cum-Chairman, Sports and Cultural Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, Human Resources and Development Ministry, Government of India, duped certain persons with an assurance to provide them jobs of Clerk in the Sports Department. Ajay Bains-complainant stated that Paramjit Singh Jandu, received ` 55,000/- from him in the month of January 1996 and issued him appointment letter on 30.1.1996, stipulating that the complainant should get himself medically examined and thereafter made him to join duty with fixed salary of ` 2450/- but all this process was found to be totally fake Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -4- and Paramjit Singh Jandu was found to be running a fake office.
9. The grounds of revision to challenge the conviction of applicant are that the conviction is based on extra judicial confession made before Jarnail Singh, Ex. Sarpanch (PW-19), who was declared hostile and that the evidence of recovery of cash amount of ` 1 lac at the instance of the applicant from the house of his friend is quite contradictory and could not be the basis of conviction.
10. It would be relevant to refer to the statement of PW-30 Inspector Ramandeep Singh, who being Investigating Officer, obtained search warrants of the house of kingpin of the fraud, namely, Paramjit Singh Jandu and various documents showing fake record of the I-card were recovered. The police party intercepted an Ambassador Car bearing registration not PB-02-5555 with red beacon on 4.1.1997 and occupants of the car were Paramjit Singh Jandu, who was driving the car along with the applicant-Niranjan Singh who was sitting by the side of Mr. Jandhu and two others. On search of the car, two suit-cases containing ` 13,50,000/- and various documents of the fake office letter pad and stamps etc. were recovered and thereafter, Mr. Jandu got certain more big recoveries. From Niranjan Singh-applicant, cash amount of ` 1 lac was recovered from the house of his friend in Sector 43-A, Chandigarh. The evidence of this recovery from applicant was also supported by PW- 20 Jagdev Singh, ASI and PW-3 Jasvir Singh, a public witness.
11. The main contention was that Jarnail Singh, Ex. Sarpanch before whom the extra-judicial confession was allegedly made had turned hostile. I however find that in cross-examination conducted by the State Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -5- counsel, the witness rather made a firm statement against the applicant.
12. I have also perused the statement of applicant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 11.11.2008, wherein his version is of total denial not explaining the circumstances of recovery of cash amount of ` 1 lac or his apprehension along with the kingpin of the whole fraud traveling in an Ambassador Car with red beacon atop.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments would apply.
14. In K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584.Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“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 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 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 of the conviction and sentence for the Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -6- offence under the 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 offence under the PC Act, de hors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter.”
15. Similarly, in another case State of Maharashtra Vs. Balakrishan Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384.the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that relief of staying the conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done. It was further observed as under:-
“16. The instant case is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. The relevant part of the impugned order (of Bombay High Court) reads as under: “As the applicant would suffer serious prejudice on account of order of dismissal, in my opinion, the applicant is justified in applying to this Court for suspending the order of conviction so that the Department shall not precipitate the matter further. The applicant through counsel fairly submits that relying on this order, the applicant will not claim further Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -7- relief of setting aside the order of suspension which is already operating against the applicant passed by the Department on 1-11- 2001.”
17. The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not sustainable in law if examined in light of the aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employee/respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits. The submission made on behalf of the respondent, that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order at such a belated stage, has no merit for the reason that this Court, vide order dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation of the said impugned order.”
. The appeal was ultimately allowed and order of the High Court suspending the conviction was set aside.
16. The facts of the present case would rather involve the Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-1263-2013 in CRR-1472-2012 -8- offence which is much graver than corruption and suspension of conviction would have serious ramifications and send a wrong message and signal to the honest and hard-working employees of the Department of Electricity. In the event of petitioner being ultimately exonerated of the charges if his revision petition is allowed, he can avail of the past arrears as his dismissal was passed simply on the ground of his having been convicted of the charge in the present FIR. There is no merit in the application for suspension of conviction and the same is dismissed.
17. The observations made above shall not mean to express any opinion on merits of the revision. September 12, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document