The revisional Court need not insist upon the confinement of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence, except in specific cases provided by the relevant sections of the Code.

1. The question to be decided in this petition is whether the revisional Court should, in ail cases, insist upon the confinement of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence. The revision petitioner was an accused in C. C. No. 3 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur. He was convicted by the said Court for an offence under S.304-A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under S.304-A. This conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court, but the sentence was reduced to one. year. He has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition to suspend the operation of the sentence. The question that falls for decision is whether it is necessary for the accused to surrender to his bail before the revisional Court suspends the sentence passed against him. For a decision on this point, it is necessary to refer to some of the sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, which detail the powers of the revisional Court, the appellate Court and the trial Court.

2. S.397,399 and 401 of the Code deal with the powers of revision. Under S.397, revisions can be filed both before the High Court and the Sessions Judge. The jurisdiction of the revisional Court to pass interim orders under S.397(1) is as follows:

"(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record."

The words 'direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended' have to be read dis-conjunctively from the words 'and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record'. Suspension of the execution of any sentence or order postulates that the petitioner is not in confinement. This section gives jurisdiction to the revisional Court to suspend sentence even though the petitioner is not in confinement. The question of releasing him on bail arises only when he is in confinement Therefore, when the accused in confinement makes an application for suspension of sentence or order, the Court should not only order suspension of the sentence or order but order his release on bail also. Not so, when he is not in confinement. This section clearly recognises the difference between a case where an accused is in confinement and when not in confinement. Thus, it will not be proper for the revisional Court to insist upon an accused to be remanded to confinement before his sentence can be suspended, for, that will be acting against the clear and express provisions contained is S.397(1) of the code, quoted above, enabling the revisional Court to exercise the twin jurisdiction vested in it in cases where the accused is in confinement and not in confinement. The matter becomes clear when the other sections of the Code are also considered.

3. The appearance of the accused to hear the judgment pronounced in the trial Court is provided for in S.353 (5) and (6) of the Code, with the proviso. This section falls in Chapter XXVII of the Code. Under this section, it is mandatory that the accused, if in custody, should be brought up to hear the judgment before the trial Court, and if he is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to be present to hear the judgment except where his personal attendance, during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one dt fine only or that he is acquitted. This means that in cases where the presence of the accused is dispe