Back
2010(2) Crimes 69 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
H.R. Panwar, J.
Ratan Lal —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan —Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Appl. No. 1441 of 2009 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 734 of 2009
Decided on 16.9.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.K. Bohra, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
For the Complainant:Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The revisional Court need not insist upon the confinement of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence or order passed against him.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 397—Revision against conviction recorded by Court below—Suspension of sentence without petitioner-accused having surrendered to sentence—In the facts and circumstances of case when sentence awarded to petitioner was short term sentence, sentence suspended till decision of revision. (Paras 4 and 5)
JUDGMENT
H.R. Panwar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence. Carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as also the record of the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the language of Section 397 Cr.P.C. it is not incumbent on the convict to surrender before seeking suspension of sentence. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Kerala High Court in Ibrahim v. State of Kerala1 wherein Kerala High Court held as under:
“The revisional Court need not insist upon the confinement of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence or order passed against him. If the accused is in confinement, the revisional Court will have to direct his release on bail, if he is not in confinement, the revisional Court need only suspend the execution of the sentence or order, either on the bond already executed or as directed by the revisional Court. Since the relevant provisions of the Code have clearly delineated the situation where the accused’ s presence is necessary, and since Section 397 is silent about the custody or confinement of the accused, the revisional Court need not insist upon bringing the accused to confinement before exercising the powers under Section 397(1) of the Code.”
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the application seeking suspension of sentence and submit that sentence is normally suspended when the accused is detained in jail and since the petitioner did not surrender, therefore, the sentence awarded to him may not be suspended.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the decision of Kerala High Court in Ibrahim v. State of Kerala (supra) as also the fact that sentence awarded to the petitioner is short term sentence without commenting on the merit of the case, I think it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2009 against the petitioner-Ratan Lal S/o late Shri Naharmal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before this Court on 27.10.2009 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, will intimate to this Court and his lawyer about his new place of residence.
Petition allowed.
********
