398 , 2001 (43 ) ACC 511 , 2001 ALLMR(Cri)2160 (SC), 2001 (3 )BLJ(SC )710 , 2001 (3 )BLJR1772 , III (2001 )CCR141 (SC ), 2001 CriLJ4234 , 2001 (3 )Crimes399 (SC ), 2001 INSC 335 , JT2001 (6 )SC 59 , 2002 -1 -LW(Crl)241 , 2001 (3 )RCR(Criminal)718 , 2001 (4 )SCALE644 , (2001 )6 SCC584 , [2001 ]Supp1 SCR224 , 2001 (2 )UC299 , 2001 (2 )UJ1483 , ,MANU/SC/0409/2001K.T. Thomas#S.N. Variava#2236SC2240Judgment/OrderACR#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALLMR(Cri)#BLJ#BLJR#CCR#CriLJ#Crimes#INSC#JT#LW(Criminal)#MANU#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCC#SCR(Supp)#UC#UJK.T. Thomas,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2013-12-2057737,15910,16010,16263,16839,16866,18847,17483 -->


True Court CopyTM EnglishUC BLJR


Appeal (crl.) 770 of 2001

Decided On: 02.08.2001

Appellants: K.C. Sareen Vs. Respondent: C.B.I., Chandigarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas and S.N. Variava


K.T. Thomas, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal of a public servant convicted and sentenced for corruption charges is pending in the High Court. The sentence has been suspended by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal. The public servant wants his conviction also to be suspended in order to avert the other fall out of the conviction. But the High Court declined to oblige him though he moved the High Court twice for the said purpose. This appeal by special leave is in challenge of the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the single Judge, by which the second petition to suspend the conviction was dismissed.

3. 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. For the purpose of this appeal we need mention about the sentence of only one count. He was sentenced to R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is against the said conviction and sentence that he preferred the appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court admitted the appeal and as mentioned earli........