Don't aid public servant convicted of corruption: SC

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, AUG. 2. ``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 even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended,'' the Supreme Court ruled today.

``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 of the appeal or revision,'' the Bench said.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas dismissed an appeal from a former officer of a nationalised bank (appellant) against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed his plea for suspension of his conviction imposed by a trial court in Patiala, in a prevention of corruption case.

The High Court, however, had suspended the sentence of imprisonment of one year and payment of fine of Rs. 500 imposed on the appellant by the trial court (on one count) during the pendency of his appeal before the High Court against the judgment of the trial court.

The Bench, which included Mr. Justice S. N. Vairava, agreed with an observation in a 1995 ruling of the apex court in `Nagor Meera's case' which had said that, ``if, however, the government servant-accused is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he continued in service''.

The Bench noted that ``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'' and ``the court has duty to look at all aspects, including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance,'' it added.

``When a public servant was 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'' and ``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,'' the Bench observed.

``It is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level,'' the Bench held.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Slogans, counter-slogans
Next     : Corporate control over the Govt.