Courts Should Refrain From Staying Conviction Of Public Servants In Corruption Cases : Supreme Court Reiterates
The Supreme Court recently refused to stay conviction of a public servant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, noting that courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that there was no reason to interfere with the Gujarat High Court order which had only suspended the sentence but did not stay the conviction.
“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. Ex facie, we find no justifiable reason to take a different view. That being the situation, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference”, the court held.
The petitioner, a public servant, has been convicted for offences under Section 7 read with Section 12 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 12, along with a fine of Rs. 3,000. He was also sentenced to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), along with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The petitioner filed an appeal against conviction before the Gujarat High Court, and sought suspension of sentence. The High Court, on April 3, 2023, allowed the application, suspending the sentence and granting bail to the petitioner. However, the High Court made it clear that the conviction was not stayed and would remain in effect. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in KC Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh and CBI, New Delhi v. MN Sharma and noted that the Court had clearly held that courts should refrain from staying convictions of public servants convicted of corruption charges.
Stating that there was no justifiable reason to take a different view, the bench concluded that the High Court’s order did not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference. It dismissed the plea as devoid of merit.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 4666/2025
Case Title – Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 690
