Supreme Court Judgment on a public servant defrauding a bank.

                          SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.
K.C. Sareen V. C.B.I., Chandigarh.
Petitioner: K.C. Sareen.
Respondent: CBI, Chandigarh.
Bench: K.T.Thomas and S.N.Variava.
Date: 02/08/2001.
Case No..: Appeal (crl.) 770 of 2001.
Judgment: Leave Granted.
Facts:  Appellant was an officer of the Punjab National Bank. When he was posted at the Mewa Mandi (Amritsar) branch of the bank he was put in charge of the current account. During the said period he got himself involved in a prosecution along with some of his co-employees of the same bank for defrauding the bank to the tune of about Rs. 2 lakhs. The Central Bureau of Investigation inquired into the matter. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and his other co-employees, for offences under Section 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `PC Act’) and Sections 120, 201 and 420 of IPC. A Special Judge at Patiala conducted the trial for such offences and at the end found the appellant and some of the co-accused guilty for different counts of offences. After the judgment given by the trial Court, the appellants moved to the High Court.
Contentions:  The appellant contended that appeal in the High Court was not likely to be boarded for hearing without the lapse of 10 years and that itself would defeats the ends of justice. Alternatively he further contended that the conviction was based on very slender reasoning and hence he has “a fair chance of getting acquitted in appeal.”  Trial can logically reach its final and only when the appellate court decides the matter the conviction passed by the trial court cannot be treated as having become absolute.
Conclusion: 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 convictional 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 scrutinize the question as to what should be the position when a public servant is conviction 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 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 unless such appeal could be heard soon after the filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is different matter.
Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction.
Decision: Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the court.
Submitted by:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.