Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2026
CRM M-42739 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
147 CRM M-42739 of 2026
Date of Decision: 04.08.2026
Tilak Raj ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.07.2026
passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fazilka in CRM-796-2026
CNR No.PBFZC0-005277-2026 titled Tilak Raj versus State of
Punjab; in FIR No. 45 dated 31.07.2018 registered under Sections
279, 304-A, 427, 337 and 338 of IPC, (Sections 281, 106, 324 and
125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, respectively), whereby, the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for
suspension of conviction of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was serving on the post of Central Head Teacher in Village
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 2
Pakka Kale Wala, Tehsil Jalalabad (W), District Fazilka. He was
falsely involved in a case, FIR No. 45 dated 31.07.2018 registered
under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 427 and 279 of IPC at Police Station
Amir Khas and was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Jalalabad. Ultimately, vide judgment and order dated
12.10.2023 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was held guilty for
committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338
and 427 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three months and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A
IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC, he was
sentenced to pay a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo imprisonment for a period of seven days. He was
also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of ₹500/-, and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days for
the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. Further, for the offence
punishable under Section 338 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 3
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Ultimately, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Fazilka.
During the pendency of the present appeal, the petitioner moved an
application under Section 430 (1) of BNSS with the prayer to suspend
the conviction on the ground that the petitioner wanted to contest an
election for the purpose of member of Senate of Panjab University,
Chandigarh, and the schedule for the said election has already been
announced by the University. Even the petitioner had already obtained
requisite permission from his department for contesting the aforesaid
election, but due to the conviction by the trial Court, he was unable to
contest the said election. Thus, the application was moved before the
appellate Court for suspension of conviction of the present petitioner,
which was wrongly declined.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record carefully.
4. The issue regarding staying the conviction of a convict in
a corruption case has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of State of Maharasthra through CBI, Anti Corruption
Branch, Mumbai Vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, 2012(12) SCC
384; 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 740, and held as follows:-
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 4
“8. In K.C. Sareen v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320, this Court examined a
case wherein a government servant who had been
convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act would lose his job in the event that the
conviction was not stayed. The Court held that when a
public servant is found guilty of corruption by a Court,
he has to be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by
a superior Court in appeal/revision. Mere stay of the
conviction during the pendency of the appeal should not
confer any benefit upon such an employee, for the
reason that if such a public servant is permitted to hold
office and to perform official acts (unless he is absolved
from such findings by a superior Court), public interest
may suffer tremendously. It may also impair the moral
of other persons manning such office and may further,
erode the confidence of the people in public institutions,
besides of course, demoralising all other honest public
servants.
9. In State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan & Anr., 2004(1)
RCR (Criminal) 317, 2004(2) Apex Criminal 209, this
Court reiterated a similar view, placing reliance upon
the judgment in K.C. Sarin (supra) and Union of India v.
Atar Singh & Anr., (2003) 12 SCC 434. In the latter
case, this Court held that an order of conviction should
not be suspended merely on the ground that non-
suspension of such conviction may entail the removal of
the government servant from service.
10. In Ravikant S. Patil v. Savabhouma S. Bagali, (2007)
1 SCC 673, this Court held as under:-
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 5
“It deserves to be clarified that an order granting stay
of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be
resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a
case. Where the execution of the sentence is stayed, the
conviction continues to operate. But where conviction
itself is stayed, the effect is that the conviction will not
be operative from the date of stay. An order of stay, of
course, does not render the conviction non-existent, but
only non-operative…….All these decisions, while
recognizing the power to stay conviction, have
cautioned and clarified that such power should be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances where
failure to stay the conviction, would lead to injustice
and irreversible consequences.” (emphasis added)
11. In Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab & Anr.,
2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 836: 2007(1) R.A.J. 310, this
Court held that the Appellate Court can suspend “an
order appealed against”, i.e. an order of conviction,
only if the convict specifically establishes the
consequences that may follow if the operation of the
said order is not stayed. Stay of conviction must be
granted only in a rare case and that too, only under
special circumstances. (See also: State of Punjab v.
Navraj Singh AIR 2008 (3), RCR (Criminal) 614:
2008(4) R.A.J. 373: 2008 SC 2962; and CBI, New Delhi
v. Roshan Lal Saini, AIR 2009 SC 755).
12.XXXX XXXX XXXX
13. The instant case is required to be examined in light
of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. The relevant
part of the impugned order reads as under:
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 6
“As the applicant would suffer serious prejudice on
account of order of dismissal, in my opinion, the
applicant is justified in applying to this Court for
suspending the order of conviction so that the
Department shall not precipitate the matter further. The
applicant through counsel fairly submits that relying on
this order, the applicant will not claim further relief of
setting aside the order of suspension which is already
operating against the applicant passed by the
Department on 1st November, 2007.”
14. The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not
sustainable in law if examined in light of the
aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is
not only a punishable offence but also undermines
human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic
corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it
leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the
aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have
passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a
case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case
where damage if done, could not be undone as the
employee/respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim
all consequential benefits. The submission made on
behalf of the respondent, that this Court should not
interfere with the impugned order at such a belated
stage, has no merit for the reason that this Court, vide
order dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation
of the said impugned order”
5. In the present case also, the petitioner was convicted by
the trial Court on 12.10.2023. After filing the appeal before the
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
CRM M-42739 of 2026 7appellate Court, the present petitioner moved an application for
suspension of conviction also. However, vide order dated 26th October
2023, the appellate Court had declined the prayer made by the
petitioner for staying the conviction of the petitioner. However, he
preferred not to challenge the said order before this court. Now, again
without disclosing the filing of the earlier application, another
application was moved before the appellate Court for staying the
conviction of the petitioner and on the ground of concealment of
material facts, the prayer was declined by the appellate Court
correctly. Even otherwise, I have carefully perused the facts of the
present case and the petitioner has failed to make out an exceptional
case in his favor for staying the conviction.
6. Consequently, in view of above discussion and the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
7. Dismissed.
04.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.08.06 11:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
judgement/order
