Courts Should Refrain From Staying Conviction of Public Servants in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Reiterates

Supreme Court refrain from staying conviction of Public Servants in corruption cases that found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Emphasizing judicial restraint in such matters, the Court underscored that convictions of public officials on corruption charges should not be stayed. The panel of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale found no valid reason to overturn the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, which had stayed the sentence but left the conviction intact.

Citing its earlier rulings in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) and CBI v. M.N. Sharma (2008), the Supreme Court reiterated that it has consistently discouraged granting a stay on convictions in corruption cases involving public servants. The bench stated there was no compelling reason to deviate from this established position, concluding that the High Court’s ruling was legally sound and did not merit intervention.

The petitioner, a government employee, had been convicted under Section 7 read with Section 12, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court imposed a two-year term of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs- 3,000 for the first set of offences, and a separate three-year term with an Rs- 5,000 fine for the second.

Following his conviction, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court seeking suspension of his sentence. On April 3, 2023, the High Court granted bail and suspended the sentence, but explicitly stated that the conviction would continue to stand. Dissatisfied with this, the petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The apex court, reaffirming its previous judgments, held that courts must be cautious about staying convictions in corruption cases involving public officials. Finding no exceptional circumstance warranting a different approach, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the High Court's order was free from legal error and did not call for any interference.

Case Title – Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat