PUNE: The Bombay high court has held that a conviction under the
Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be stayed in view of the law enunciated by the
Supreme Court through various rulings.
On Wednesday, Justice A M Badar had rejected a plea by Ghurphekan Ram (61) seeking a stay on his conviction by a special CBI court in Pune in a disproportionate assets case. Ram is a retired senior sectional engineer of
Central Railway's permanent way (
P Way) unit at
Uruli Kanchan.
However, the high court confirmed its May 19, 2017, order suspending Ram's four-year sentence and grant of bail, pending disposal of his appeal which was admitted for final hearing on June 12 last year.
In a judgment on April 28, 2017, the then special judge (CBI) D M Deshmukh found Ram guilty of amassing disproportionate assets that were 13.8% beyond his known sources of income, and sentenced him to four years imprisonment. Ram had since appealed in the high court and was released on bail by virtue of the May 19, 2017, order.
Later, he moved a composite application for suspension of sentence, his release and a stay on the conviction. His lawyer argued that the trial court had erred in computing Ram's income.
He argued that Ram had taken a loan of Rs3 lakh on April 8, 2010, and Rs5 lakh on May 14, 2013, from the Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pune, but the trial judge considered only latter loan.
Had the first loan been considered, the total assets in the case would not have exceeded 10% of the known source of income, the counsel argued. The CBI's lawyer argued that point raised by the applicant's counsel may be a good ground for working out the matter, but in the settled position of law as reflected in various apex court judgments, there cannot be a stay on conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In his order, Justice Badar referred to the entire evidence on record and observed that the prosecuting agency has proved Ram amassed disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt. "As assets were found to be more by 13.8%," the bench said, "whether this conclusion is correct or not and whether the same is in consonance with the evidence on record or not will have to be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of the appeal."
The bench went on to refer to at least four Supreme Court judgments relating to the precautions needed to be taken by the courts while dealing with pleas for stay on conviction orders in prevention of corruption cases, and held that the same cannot be granted in the case in question.
