C.B.I., Chandigarh 2001 6 SCC 584.
It was passed in the presence of the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who represented the respondent State.
Sentenced imposed on the appellant had already been stayed.
It will take a long time to decide the appeal.
P.C. was allowed and the companyviction of the appellant recorded under Sections 7 and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was suspended during pendency of appeal.
By reason of the Order dated 11.1.2005, learned Judge of the Special Court allowed the said application holding I have heard Ld.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst marked as Criminal Appeal No.
Order dated 11.1.2005 can neither be reviewed number recalled.
1022 SB/04.
The merits of the case were companysidered.
An application was filed by the appellant herein for vacation of stay of companyviction granted to him by reason of the said order with a prayer to recall the same, whereby the Courts attention was drawn to a judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen Vs.
1251 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
5958 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
In the said appeal, an application was filed by the respondent for suspending of companyviction purported to be under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
There is numberblanket bar imposed on the Appellate Court to grant stay of companyviction in companyruption cases.
1,000/ Rupees One Thousand Only was also imposed upon him by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
By reason of the impugned judgment while the Court accepted that an order suspending the companyviction companyld be allowed only in a very exceptional case, dismissed the application of stay holding The present petition is number maintainable.
Hence, the companyviction was stayed during pendency of the appeal.
