TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 8.5.2013, must be cursing the criminal system finding that neither he has received any money nor the petitioner No. 2 was arrested despite being convicted and has also not surrendered without any effective orders of suspension of substantive sentence at present from the High Court or any other Court. There are no merit or ground in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2 to allow the application and exempt the petitioner No. 2 from surrendering and grant suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition at this stage - application dismissed. - CRL. REV. P. 629/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. For the Appellant : Khowaja Siddiqui, Adv. For the Respondent : Ashish Dutta, APP JUDGMENT Chander Shekhar, J. Crl. M.A. 33858/2018 1. The petitioner No. 2 has moved the present application for exemption from surrendering and granting suspension of sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. 2. In the present case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate announced the judgment on 19.2.2014 and passed the order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner No. 2 submitted that the petitioner No. 2 filed an application CRL. M.(BAIL) 10706/2014 for suspension of order on sentence which was not heard by this Court. However, the order-sheet of this case demonstrates that the aforesaid application was not pressed by the petitioner No. 2 at any point of time. But the fact remains that whether the application was pressed or not pressed, this Court never passed any order for the suspension of sentence at any point of time. 6. In the case titled as Krishan Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab in CRM-34325-2015 in CRR-3960-2015 (O M), it is held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as under: ...Plea has been opposed by the State counsel. He has referred to provision of Section 353(6) Cr.P.C. According to him, in terms of said provision, if an accused is not in custody, he would be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except when his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is of fine only or he is acquitted. According to him, at the time of judgment to be delivered by the appellate court, provision of Section 353(6) Cr.P.C. would apply as envisaged by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra). Even Section 397 leaves no room for doubt that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this court may direct that execution of any sentence or order qua the accused be suspended and the accused if in confinement would be released on bail. Needless to observe that in case sentence remains unexecuted even after being upheld by lower appellate court, there would no occasion for suspending the same. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner, who does not abide by the order of the lower appellate court and fails to surrender, his prayer in revisional jurisdiction for suspension of execution of the sentence would merit outright rejection. Application is, thus, dismissed. 7. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. Subhash Chand Gupta, Criminal Revision Petition No. 1096/2011, the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 6.9.2011 held as under: (4) ..... According to Section 389(3) CrPC, at the time of pronouncement of judgment by the trial court, the accused may apply for suspension of sentence, showing his intention to appeal before the appellate court. The trial court may suspend the sentence for a period of one month for filing the appeal. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed and is hereby dismissed. The application seeking suspension of sentence, also stands disposed. 9. In the matter of Satish Tandon vs. State Of Punjab And Another, CRR-417-2014 (O M), the Punjab Haryana High Court vide order dated 6.2.2014 held as under: (5) ....... There is no doubt that this Court can suspend the execution of the sentence as per provision contained in Section 401, Cr.P.C., while hearing criminal revision petition, but that has to be done only when the petitioner is behind the bars. 10. The Supreme Court in Vivek Rai and Ors. v. High Court of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 1088, held that it is a well known practice and procedure as well as rule or ordinance that generally a revision petition is filed after appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken in custody in Court itself. The object of the rule is to ensure that a person who has been convicted by two Courts obeys the law and does not abscond. The practice and the provision cannot, thus, be held to be arbitrary in any manner. The practice and provision is to regulate the procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of the Code of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court cannot be helpless in such a situation and allow the convict to make a mockery of the criminal system. The respondent No. 2, who filed the complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 8.5.2013, must be cursing the criminal system finding that neither he has received any money nor the petitioner No. 2 was arrested despite being convicted and has also not surrendered without any effective orders of suspension of substantive sentence at present from the High Court or any other Court. Hence, I do not find any merit or ground in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2 to allow the application and exempt the petitioner No. 2 from surrendering and grant suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition at this stage after the passing of the judgment by the Appellate Court on 29.8.2014. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. CRL. REV. P. 629/2014, CRL. M. (BAIL) 10706/2014 13. Court notice be issued to the respondent No. 2 and his counsel, in the interest of justice, returnable on 25.1.2019. 14. The concerned Court of Additional Sessions Judge be informed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
