M. Venugopal , J.

The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 01.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2015 in C.A.No.81 of 2015 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur.

2. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, on 01.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2015 in C.A.No.81 of 2015 had 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), Karur on 12.05.2015 in C.C.No.560 of 2013 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 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 serve the period of sentence. He therefore 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) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. With the above direction this petition is dismissed."

3. Challenging the validity, correctness and legality of the order dated 01.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2015 in C.A.No.81 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Appellant) passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, the Revision Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition contending that the appellate Court had failed to consider that it has necessary power to suspend the sentence in terms of Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., and the offence is also appeal able one.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner urges before this Court that the appellate Court had failed to consider that the Petitioner has a good case and he was not in a position to cross-examine the respondent and adduce evidence before the trial Court.

5. It is the stand of the Revision Petitioner that the appellate Court had failed to consider the reason for his non-appearance was only due to his illness.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused takes a plea that in case of summary procedure, where law provides for adjudication of case in the absence of an accused, the trial Court should have stipulated a time frame within which an accused should prefer an appeal or surrender to serve the substantive sentence and in fact, the trial Court had committed mistake in issuing Non-Bailable Warrant on the date of passing the judgment in C.C.No.560 of 2013 dated 12.05.2015. That apart, the appellate Court, while dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2015 in C.A.No.81 of 2015, mainly on the ground that Non-Bailable Warrant is pending against the Revision Petitioner/Accused.

7. Yet another stand taken on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is that the trial Court ought to have issued notice to the Petitioner/Accused before delivering the judgment in C.C.No.560 of 2013 on its file dated 12.05.2015 and the pronouncement of judgment, in the absence of Learned Counsel had caused irreparable loss and hardship to the Revision Petitioner /Appellant/Accused.

8. At this stage, it is worthwhile for this Court to cite the decision (R. Sarathkumar v. The Inspector of Police, C-9, Police Station, Neelankarai, Chennai) reported in 2004 MLJ (CRL.) 421, whereby and where under it is observed and held 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,