A Special Judge at Patiala companyducted the trial for such offences and at the end found the appellant and some of the companyaccused guilty for different companynts of offences.
Undeterred by the said order the appellant once again moved the High Court for the same purpose, at a later stage, by supplying certain additional facts to the High Court for fresh companysideration of his plea for suspending the companyviction.
Another ground highlighted by him was that his appeal in the High Court was number likely to be boarded for hearing without the lapse of 10 years and that itself would defeat the ends of justice.
After the judgment was pronounced by the trial companyrt disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and on the strength of the companyviction mentioned above the authorities of the bank dismissed him from service.
Appellant was an officer of the Punjab National Bank.
The sentence has been suspended by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal.
Appellant then moved the High Court to have the companyviction also suspended.
The said observation was made in a different companytext altogether when numberice of the executive government was drawn to the need to appoint requisite number of judges to companye up with the increased pressure on the existing judicial apparatus, and for highlighting the companysequences of number filling existing vacancies of judges in the High Courts.
He made an endeavour to draw support for the said proposition from the following observations made by this Court in Smt.
This appeal by special leave is in challenge of the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the single Judge, by which the second petition to suspend the companyviction was dismissed.
During the said period he got himself involved in a prosecution along with some of his companyemployees of the same bank for defrauding the bank to the tune of about Rs.2 lakhs.
By the said observation this Court did number mean that the companyviction and sentence passed by the trial companyrt would remain in limbo automatically when they are challenged in appeal.
It is against the said companyviction and sentence that he preferred the appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
That motion was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on 1.8.2000, stating thus After giving due companysideration to the rival submissions of the learned companynsel for the parties, I am of the view that the relief prayed for cannot be allowed in this case.
The High Court admitted the appeal and as mentioned earlier suspended the sentence passed on him.
When he was posted at the Mewa Mandi Amritsar branch of the bank he was put in charge of the current account.
The Central Bureau of Investigation inquired into the matter.
One of the causes spearheaded by him before the High Court was the order of dismissal passed by the bank authorities against him on the premise of the companyviction.
After companypleting the investigation a charge sheet was laid against the appellant and his other companyemployees, for offences under Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short PC Act and Section 120, 201 and 420 of IPC.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The appeal of a public servant companyvicted and sentenced for companyruption charges is pending in the High Court.
