Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 23962
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice R.SAKTHIVEL
S.M.ARUL NANDI SIVAM – Appellant
Versus
K.C.SOUNDARAPANDIYAN – Respondent
The court emphasized that every accused has a right to seek bail in a summons case, and failure to follow due procedure in trial infringes on fair trial rights.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Criminal Defamation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 389(1), 317, 353(6) - The court analyzed the respondent's rights to appeal suspensions, the procedural safeguards for the accused, and the implications of not allowing bail under fair trial principles, leading to the decision to suspend the execution of the sentence pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 500 of IPC for criminal defamation, sought to overturn a dismissal of his petition for suspension of his sentence during his appeal, arguing procedural unfairness in the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's claim that the trial court's actions violated principles of natural justice, noting that the trial court failed to grant him an opportunity for bail and did not adequately consider his absence due to illness.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the judgment in the petitioner's absence, and whether the appellate court should grant suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the existence of a valid appeal is crucial for exercising jurisdiction under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. and that the trial court's failure to follow procedure warranted reversal of the dismissal of the suspension petition.
Final Decision: The execution of the petitioner’s sentence is suspended pending the disposal of the appeal, subject to certain conditions.
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 to March 25, 2024 for pronouncing judgment. On March 25, 2024, the petitioner was unable to attend the Court since he was unwell and a petition under section 317 of Cr.P.C. was duly filed. But, the Trial Court dismissed the said petition, pronounced the j
