IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 Tarsem Chand Kansal ...Petitioner Versus Dr. Sukhjeet Singh Jatana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Bathinda, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of cheque amount, i.e., total Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque in question till the date of passing the impugned judgment and order.

2. It is apparent from the record that at the time of disposal of the appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda/Appellate Court, the present petitioner did not appear and the appeal was decided, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/accused in the present case.

3. Even before this Court, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 430 read with Section 520 of BNSS with a prayer to grant exemption to the petitioner from surrender and to suspend his sentence during the pendency of the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 77 years and is suffering from various old age related ailments. He had undergone PCI with stent surgery and has been diagnosed with cholelithiasis (gall stones) with BPH Grade III (Prostate) alongwith infected hydatid cyst of liver. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the medical record (Annexure P-1) in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that due the precarious medical condition, the petitioner could not travel to Bathinda and was absent at the time of the disposal of his appeal. Thus, he prays that the petitioner may be granted exemption from surrender and the sentence imposed on him may be suspended by this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the following questions of law arise for the consideration by this Court:-

(i) Whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction can entertain and hear the revision petition on merits, even when the accused had not surrendered before the Appellate Court, after dismissal of his appeal by the Ist Appellate Court.

(ii) Whether while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can suspend the sentence without the accused having surrendered after dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Court.

6. The interpretation of two provisions of law, i.e., Sections 389 and 418 of Cr.P.C. is involved in the present and both the provisions of law have been reproduced below:-

“389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal;

release of appellant on bail:-

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond:

[Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release:

Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancella