Courts Should Refrain From Staying Conviction Of Public Servants Convicted On Charges Of Corruption: Supreme Court
The Court said there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to stay the petitioner’s conviction, relying on established precedent against suspension of conviction in corruption cases involving public servants.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice P.B. Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging a Gujarat High Court order that declined to stay the conviction of a public servant found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while observing that no exceptional or compelling ground had been made out to warrant interference.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “This Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. M.N. Sharma, (2008) 8 SCC 549 has categorically laid down that the Courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption.”
Advocate Niteen Kumar Sinha appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, a public servant, was tried for offences punishable under Section 7, read with Section 12, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on allegations of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Upon conclusion of trial, he was convicted by the competent Trial Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of 5,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The Petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, by order dated 3 April 2023, granted suspension of sentence. However, it expressly clarified that such suspension would not amount to a stay of conviction and that the conviction would continue to operate.
Challenging the said clarification, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court, contending that the refusal to stay the conviction, despite suspension of sentence, had caused grave prejudice to his service career and retirement entitlements, and warranted interference.
Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court confined its consideration strictly to the question of whether the High Court erred in declining to stay the conviction.
The Bench categorically rejected the petitioner’s challenge, reiterating that convictions of public servants in corruption cases stand on a distinct footing and are subject to judicial restraint when it comes to suspension.
The Court held, “This Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. M.N. Sharma, (2008) 8 SCC 549 has categorically laid down that the Courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption.”
The Bench found no exceptional circumstance or legal infirmity that would justify departure from that settled principle.
The Court held, “That being the situation, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit
Cause Title: Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 4666 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Niteen Kumar Sinha; Advocates Vikram Pratap Singh, Dushyant Pratap Singh, Kranti Pratap Singh, Maneesh Saxena