1. ' The petitioner has appealed against his conviction under section 409, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by judgment dated 2-7-1978 of the Special Judge (Central), Lahore. The sentence is 3 years rigorous imprisonment under section 409, P. P. C. And one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The substantive sentence therefore comes to 4 years' R. I. Besides a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default of payment of fine further R. I. For one year. Along with the appeal this application under section 426, Cr. P. C. For suspension of the sentence and for allowing bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal has been filed.
2. ' The grounds urged for suspension of the sentence are that the prosecution has failed to prove the case by independent evidence, that it is not proved on record that the goods did not reach Bahawalpur the place of posting of the petitioner, and that there is likely to occur inordinate delay in the disposal of the appeal.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the suspension of the sentence on the grounds that the prosecution had fully established its case, that there is a judgment holding the petitioner guilty of the offences charged, and that huge amount of Government money has been embezzled and misappropriated by the petitioner. It is next submitted by him that the present is not the stage at which it could be said that the appeal is not likely to be heard before the period of sentence is run out as it is even less than one month that has elapsed since the filing of the appeal.
4. ' This is not the stage to go minutely into the merits of the evidence in order to arrive at a finding whether the offence has been established or not. Prima facie, however, the judgment impugned in appeal does not seem to suffer from any patent error calling for suspension of the sentence. Even the above observation made by me is subject to final scrutiny at the time of hearing of the main appeal.
5. ' I, however, find force in the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the State and do not see any reason to suspend the operation of the sentence as at present. I am of the view that amendment by way of addition of subsection (1-A) to section 426, Cr. P. C. Shows that the Statute has taken care of the matter of delays in the disposal of appeals. For sentences of varying periods, statutory period has been fixed within which if appeal is not disposed of the convict has been made entitled to be released on bail. On a true construction of section 426, Cr. P. C. As amended by addition of subsection (I-A), it emerges that unless there are other impelling reasons to suspend the operation of the sentence and to allow bail to the convict, the ground of delay likely to occur in the disposal of the appeal if the period fixed by sub-clauses (a), (b and (c) of subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr. P. C. Has not expired would no be such so as to entitle the petitioner to be allowed bail.
6. ' As a result of the above discussion, I dismiss this application.
7. ' The petitioner can, however, apply for suspension of the sentence afresh if the appeal is not fixed for hearing within a reasonable time.