Supreme Court: No Stay on Conviction for Public Servants Found Guilty of Corruption

In a recent important decision, the Supreme Court of India refused to stay the conviction of a public servant who was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court strongly reminded that courts should not stay the convictions of public servants who are convicted on corruption charges.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld an order of the Gujarat High Court which had only suspended the sentence of the accused but did not stay his conviction.

The public servant was convicted for offences 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 had sentenced him to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the first offence along with a fine of ₹3,000 and 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the second offence with a fine of ₹5,000.

After his conviction, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court seeking suspension of his sentence. The High Court granted him bail and suspended his sentence on April 3, 2023, but clearly said that the conviction would remain in force.

Unhappy with this, the petitioner then went to the Supreme Court asking for his conviction to be stayed so that he could avoid the consequences that come with a corruption conviction — such as losing his job as a public servant.

However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected his request. The bench referred to its earlier landmark judgments in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) and CBI, New Delhi v. M.N. Sharma (2008) where it was clearly stated that courts should generally not stay the conviction of public servants who are found guilty of corruption.

The Court observed:

“Ex facie, we find no justifiable reason to take a different view. That being the situation, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.”

This means the Supreme Court found no valid reason to interfere with the High Court’s order.

In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea as having no merit, sending a clear message that public servants found guilty of corruption cannot easily escape the consequences of their conviction.

This judgment reinforces the principle that public offices must be held by people with integrity, and any attempt to protect convicted officials from the fallout of their wrongdoing will not be tolerated by the judiciary.