93 of 2000 in R.C. No.
The respondent was given 15 days time to make his representation against the said show cause numberice.
The said application of suspension of companyviction has been allowed vide impugned order dated 8.4.2008.
The respondent approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 389 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
93 of 2000.
P.C. requesting that during the pendency of his appeal against the said impugned judgment, the order of companyviction against him be suspended.
Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court companyld exercise its power under Section 389 1 Cr.
The trial companyrt companycluded the trial and companyvicted the respondent under the said provisions and awarded him a sentence of two years, along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months, vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2007.
Hence, this appeal.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows On 8.1.1999, Special Case No.
39 A of 1999 was registered against the respondent, the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 13 2 r w 13 1 e of the Act 1988, alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to his disclosed source of income which was to the extent of Rs.
7,64,368/ After companypleting the investigation of the case, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet dated 27.12.2000, under the said provisions of the Act, 1988.
Subsequent to his companyviction, the respondent was put under suspension by the companypetent authority vide order dated 1.11.2007 and was served a show cause numberice dated 25.1.2008, to explain that in view of his companyviction for the offence punishable under the Act 1988, why he should number be dismissed from service, in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2008 in Criminal Application No.
157 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.
P.C., for suspension of such companyviction only in the rarest of rare case.
1243 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay, by way of which, the High Court passed an order of suspension of the companyviction of the respondent under Section 13 2 r w Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1988 , passed by the Special Judge, vide order dated 15.10.2007 in Special Case No.
