Hemchand Son of Shri Birdichand, Vs State of Rajasthan

The matter comes up on an application seeking stay of the operation and effect of the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No.38/2018 (for short ‘the appellate court’), whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, affirmed the judgment dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, District Ajmer in Criminal Case No.96/2008 (for short ‘the trial court’), by which the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 466, 467 and 471 IPC and sentenced as under:-

Offence	Sentence
420 IPC	3 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default
	ofpayment of fine,to further undergo 6 months

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:43315]

[9496 Cr. Stay 2023 ]

	S.I.
466 IPC	3 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I.
467 IPC	3 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I.
471 IPC	3 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government servant at the relevant point of time and was working on the post of Patwari. He was dismissed from service by the District Collector (Land Record), Ajmer vide order dated 08.11.2023 on account of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the effect and operation of the judgment dated 25.10.2023 passed by the appellate court as well as the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2016 are not stayed, then the petitioner will not be taken back on duty. He further submits that except the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses have been turned hostile and during the course of investigation, the disputed Sajra was not recovered and mutation was not attested by the petitioner.

(I) Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in 2013 SCC online (Raj) 450 .

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:43315]

[9496 Cr. Stay 2023 ]

(II) Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 .

(III) Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang reported in (1995) 2 SCC 513 .

(IV) Bhagwan Singh vs. State reported in 2009 WLC(Raj) 575 .

(V) Ramjit Singh Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B.

Cr. Appeal No. 2546/2023.

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the stay application and argued that as per CCA Rules if a government employee is convicted, the State can dismiss him from service only on account of the conviction order. If the conviction is stayed, government will be forced to keep a convict on duty which will have serious repercussions and public faith would be lost if a convict is continued in job.

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and at the relevant point of time working as a Patwari and consequences of not staying his conviction will affect his career as he has been dismissed from service vide order dated 8.11.2023, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to stay the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2016 and affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 25.10.2023.