Suspension of conviction is an exceptional remedy; service consequences alone do not justify it in corruption cases.

Stay or suspension of a conviction under Section 389(1) CrPC is an extraordinary remedy to be used only in rare and exceptional cases, with reasons recorded in writing and specific demonstrated prejudice from keeping the conviction operative. In corruption cases involving public servants, the mere prospect of dismissal from service is not, by itself, sufficient to justify suspension of the conviction, because public interest, institutional integrity and public confidence in administration weigh against such relief. The suspension of conviction was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be suspended under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely to prevent the respondent's dismissal from service.

Analysis: The power to stay or suspend a conviction is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly in rare and exceptional cases. The applicant seeking such relief must specifically demonstrate the consequences that would follow if the conviction remains operative, and the appellate court must record reasons in writing. In cases of corruption involving public servants, mere likelihood of removal from service is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to suspend the conviction, as public interest, institutional integrity, and the confidence of the public in administration are materially affected.

Conclusion: The suspension of conviction was not warranted and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Stay of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an exception, to be granted only in rare and exceptional cases on demonstrated irreversible prejudice, and not merely to avert service consequences in corruption cases.

---