IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.232 of 2010
JANARDAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
6 15.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the State in respect of IA No.187 of
2011.
Through this application under Section 389
(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has prayed for suspension of his
conviction by the judgment and order under appeal dated
21.12.2009 for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the necessity to stay the judgment of
conviction against the appellant has arisen on account of an
order dated 16.9.2010 issued from the office of the District
Superintendent of Education, Patna contained in Annexure-
A to the IA whereby the appellant has been dismissed from
service on account of his conviction which in the opinion of
the employer shows moral turpitude. The order of dismissal
is with effect from 21.12.2009 when the appellant was
-2-
taken into custody after conviction.
It was further submitted that on behalf of the
appellant that on merits, the appellant has a good case
because the informant did not name him as accused in the
FIR and subsequently some witnesses have deposed that he
was seen at the place of occurrence along with other
accused persons, who fired at the deceased and only one
witness PW 1 has deposed that he heard the appellant
exhorting other accused to fire and kill.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted
that the informant has admitted that he is not an eye witness
of the occurrence and he came to know through others
that his brother has been shot and removed to hospital. He
further submitted that at this stage it would not be proper to
hold that the judgment of conviction against the appellant
has no merits and requires suspension so as to enable the
appellant to work as a teacher. According to him, if the
judgment of conviction is suspended it would amount to
permitting a person with moral turpitude to teach young
students.
Considering the pros and cons of the matter,
-3-
we are not persuaded to stay the conviction of the appellant.
The IA is, therefore, dismissed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Gopal Prasad, J.)
sk