Suspension of corruption conviction under Section 389 CrPC remains exceptional and was refused on the facts.

Suspension of a corruption conviction under Section 389(1) CrPC is an exceptional remedy, available only in very limited circumstances. The court treated the conviction as arising from judicial adjudication on graft charges and held that a public servant convicted for corruption should ordinarily continue to suffer the legal disability of conviction until exoneration by a superior court. It also distinguished the cited precedents on their facts and found that earlier departmental proceedings and the later criminal conviction concerned distinct charges. On that basis, the request to stay or suspend the conviction was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction in a corruption case could be stayed or suspended under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during the pendency of the criminal appeal.

Analysis: The request for suspension of conviction was examined in the light of the settled principle that such power is to be exercised only in very exceptional circumstances. The nature of the conviction was relevant, as it arose from corruption charges decided after a judicial adjudicatory process. The authorities relied upon for suspension of conviction were distinguished on the facts, and the principle that a public servant convicted on graft charges should ordinarily continue to suffer the disability of conviction until exoneration by a superior court was applied. The earlier departmental proceedings and the later criminal conviction were found to concern distinct charges.

Conclusion: The case did not justify suspension of the conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the application was rejected.

---