The court emphasized the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Cr. P.C. and ensuring the accused's rights are upheld, particularly in relation to the issuance of warrants and the right to seek suspension of sentence.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order, dated 1.12.2015 in CRL M.P. No. 1306 of 2015 in C.A. No. 82 of 2015, passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur while passing the impugned order in CRL M.P. No. 1306 of 2015 in CRL Appeal No. 82 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused), had among other things, observed the following:-

“Heard both sides.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Karuron 13.05.2015 in C.C. No. 35 of 2014 and the petitioner was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. According to him, in the absence of the accused, the judgment and order of sentence was passed by the trial Court and immediately the trial Court issued a NBW to secure the petitioner to under go the period of sentence. He there fore prayed for suspension of the sentence passed by the trial Court till the disposal of the criminal appeal.

The respondent has raised objection for the petition and contended that it is for the petitioner to move the trial Court to get the appropriate relief on surrender of the accused and that this petition is not maintainable before this Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court, that on such surrender, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the application under Section 70(2) of Cr. P.C. in accordance with law. With the above direction, this petition is dismissed.''

3. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 1.12.2015 in CRL M.P. No. 1306 of 2015 in C.A. No. 82 of 2015, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court basically contending that the impugned order passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur is to be set aside by this Court since the same is not in accordance with Law.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused urges before this Court that the ingredients of Section 389(1) of Cr. P.C. are unambiguous and further enjoins in a crystal-clear manner that an appellate Court can suspend the execution of substantive sentence itself and in the event of an appellant suffering an incarceration, he may be released on bail on his own bond. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused proceeds to take a plea that in case of summary procedure, where Law provides for adjudication of the case in the absence of an accused, the trial Court should have stipulated the time within which the accused should prefer an appeal or surrender to serve the substantive sentence. As such, the trial Court had committed a mistake in issuing the Non-Bailable Warrant on the date of passing the Judgment in C.C. No. 35 of 2014, dated 12.5.2015. Apart from that, the appellate Court had erroneously dismissed the petition for suspension of sentence, mainly on the ground that Non-Bailable Warrant is pending against the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused.

5. It is the stand of the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused that the trial Court ought to have issued notice to the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused prior to the passing of the Judgment in C.C. No. 35 of 2014, dated 12.5.2015 and deliverance of judgment even in the absence of counsel, the Petitioner is very much put to inconvenience, hardship and untold misery.

6. At this stage, this Court points out the decision of this Court R. Sarathkumar vs. Inspector of Police, Police Station Neelankarai, Chennai, 2004 MLJ (Crl.) 421, wherein, it is observed and reads as follows:-

“Non-bailable warrant issued without a preceding bailable warrant where the offence is bailable, is not in accordance with the scheme of the criminal procedure code and hence, illegal. Therefore, while exerci