Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
S.M. Arul Nandi Sivam – Petitioner
Versus
K.C. Soundarapandiyan – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 12197 of 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE - Cr.P.C. Sections 482, 389(1), 389(3), 353(6), 317, 500 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 482, 389(1), and 389(3), which govern the suspension of sentences and the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, including the right to seek bail and the necessity of the accused's presence during judgment pronouncement. The court found that the trial court's failure to allow the petitioner to seek bail constituted a violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to suspend the execution of the sentence pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trustee of M/s. Vasudeva Pillai Trust, was convicted of criminal defamation under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment. The petitioner appealed the conviction and sought suspension of the sentence, which was denied by the Principal Sessions Judge due to the petitioner's absence during the judgment pronouncement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in not allowing the petitioner to seek bail under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant without considering the petitioner's medical condition that prevented his attendance. The court concluded that the procedural safeguards were not followed, infringing upon the petitioner's rights.
Issues: Whether the trial court's denial of the petitioner's request for bail and the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant were justified, and whether the appellate court could suspend the execution of the sentence despite these actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of a valid appeal is a prerequisite for the appellate court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that the trial court must provide the accused an opportunity to seek bail when imposing a sentence of imprisonment, as per the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, suspended the execution of the sentence pending the appeal, and imposed conditions for the petitioner to fulfill, including the payment of a fine and surrendering to the court.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 22.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 12306 of 2024 i.e., suspension of sentence on the file of Court of Sessions at Chennai.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been presented on May 14, 2024 under Section 482 of the ‘Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)’ (henceforth ‘Cr.P.C.’), praying to set aside the order dated April 22, 2024 made in Crl.M.P.No. 12306 of 2024 in C.A.No. 311 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai pending disposal of C.A.No. 311 of 2024, which is now made over to XX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.
Factual Matrix
2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent herein is the complainant before ‘II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai’ (henceforth ‘Trial Court’). The petitioner and the respondent are trustees of M/s.Vasudeva Pillai Trust. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner committed the offence of criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (henceforth 'IPC'), before the Trial Court. The Trial Court took the case on file in Calender Case No. 1432 of 2015, and after full trial and hearing both sides, convicted the petitioner under Section 500 of IPC and imposed ONE YEAR Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo THREE MONTHS Simple Imprisonment.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the said conviction and judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No. 311 of 2024 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai along with a petition under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No. 12306 of 2024 in C.A.No. 311 of 2024 seeking suspension of sentence. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. The operative portion of the dismissal order reads thus:
“3. This court has also perused the memorandum of appeal and the submission made by the petitioner's counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner was found guilty u/s.500 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide judgment dated 25.03.2024. On the date of judgment, the petitioner was absent and hence, N.B.W. was issued against him and the same pending. It is the admitted case of the petitioner / accused that no petition u/s 389(3) Cr.P.C for suspending the sentence was filed on behalf of the petitioner / accused on the date of judgment and the sentence cannot be suspended since the convicted accused was not personally present before the trial court. Even today, the petitioner / accused has not come forward to surrender before this court. Once conviction warrant has been issued, the sentence cannot be suspended by the trial court and also the appellate court and the only remedy available to the petitioner / accused is that he has to surrender and sought for bail.
4. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the view that the petition to suspend the sentence has to be dismissed as not maintainable.”
3.1. Thereafter, the case was made over to the XX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai for disposal as per law and the same is currently posted on June 14, 2024.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
ARGUMENTS
5. Mr.John Sathyan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the Trial Court after concluding trial, posted the matter on March 13, 2024 for pronouncing judgment. On that date, the petitioner and the respondent were present, and the Trial Court adjourned the case to March 21, 2024 for pronouncing judgment. On March 21, 2024 also, the petitioner and the respondent were present, however, judgment was not pronounced and the matter was adjourned
AI
The court established that procedural safeguards must be adhered to in criminal proceedings, particularly the right of the accused to seek bail and the necessity of their presence during judgment pro....
The court established that an accused who has not been required to execute bail bonds during trial cannot be denied suspension of sentence solely on that basis, provided they are not in custody and m....
The court held that the discretion to suspend a sentence post-conviction must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence and the likelihood of appeal success.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the appellate court to suspend the sentence pending appeal, the conditions for such suspension, and the practical reasons for del....
The correct calculation of days for filing appeal and suspension of sentence petition is crucial in determining the admissibility of the petition.
The court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements in criminal cases, particularly regarding the execution of sentences and the rights of the accused to appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence of a person convicted under the NDPS Act pending appeal, subject to the conditi....
Suspension of sentence should be considered liberally unless there is any statutory restriction, and the appellate Court has the discretion to suspend a sentence awarded under the NDPS Act, emphasizi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
