9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1886 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Seeking exemption from surrendering and granting suspension of sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition - HELD THAT - It is seen that it has become a habit to blame the earlier counsels without any basis though the complaints against earlier counsels in some cases may be true but to substantiate such complaints there should be some action or material from the side of the petitioner on the record. The petitioner No. 2 in this case has not complained against the earlier counsel to the Bar Council of Delhi or Bar Council of India in this regard at any point of time. The submissions made are required to be nipped in the bud. It is also not the case of the petitioner No. 2 that he had at any point of time asked his counsel about the suspension of the sentence. Even otherwise this submission of the petitioner No. 2 has no bearing on the merits of the present application. The Court cannot be helpless and allow the convict to make a mockery of the criminal system. The respondent No. 2 who filed the complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on 8.5.2013 must be cursing the criminal system finding that neither he has received any money nor the petitioner No. 2 was arrested despite being convicted and has also not surrendered without any effective orders of suspension of substantive sentence at present from the High Court or any other Court. There are no merit or ground in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2 to allow the application and exempt the petitioner No. 2 from surrendering and grant suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition at this stage - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from Surrendering and Suspension of Sentence. 2. Dismissal of Appeal by the Appellate Court. 3. Legal Precedents on Suspension of Sentence and Surrender Requirement. 4. Negligence of Counsel Claim by Petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption from Surrendering and Suspension of Sentence: The petitioner No. 2 sought exemption from surrendering and suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition. The court noted that the petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and sentenced to simple imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner appealed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., and the Appellate Court initially suspended the sentence during the appeal. However, after the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner neither surrendered nor was taken into custody, and no further order for suspension of the sentence was passed by the court. 2. Dismissal of Appeal by the Appellate Court: The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 29.8.2014, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court observed that the petitioner was not taken into custody after the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner did not comply with the legal requirement to surrender after the appeal was dismissed and no suspension of sentence was granted by the court. 3. Legal Precedents on Suspension of Sentence and Surrender Requirement: The judgment referenced several legal precedents to support its decision: - Krishan Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab: The court highlighted that an accused must be present at the time of judgment, and the appellate court must secure the presence of the accused for pronouncement of judgment. The court cannot suspend the sentence or grant bail after confirming the conviction. - Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. Subhash Chand Gupta: The Rajasthan High Court held that the appellate court must take the accused into custody after the judgment, and the revision petition is not maintainable without surrender. - Mohammad Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan: Reinforced the principle that the appellate court must take the accused into custody after the judgment, and the revision petition is not maintainable without surrender. - Satish Tandon vs. State Of Punjab And Another: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that suspension of sentence can only be granted when the petitioner is behind bars. - Vivek Rai and Ors. v. High Court of Jharkhand and Ors.: The Supreme Court emphasized that a revision petition is generally filed after the appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody to ensure compliance with the law. 4. Negligence of Counsel Claim by Petitioner: The petitioner claimed that the application for suspension of the sentence was not pressed due to the negligence of the earlier counsel. The court dismissed this claim, stating that it appeared to be an afterthought without any substantial evidence. The petitioner had not lodged any complaint against the earlier counsel with the Bar Council, and there was no record of any action taken by the petitioner in this regard. The court found no merit in this submission and emphasized that the petitioner had not surrendered or been taken into custody despite being convicted by two concurrent judgments. Conclusion: The court dismissed the application for exemption from surrendering and suspension of the sentence, highlighting the importance of compliance with legal procedures and the necessity for the petitioner to surrender after the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment reinforced the principles established in various legal precedents regarding the requirement for an accused to be taken into custody after the appellate court's judgment and the limited discretion of the appellate court in suspending sentences post-judgment. The court also issued a notice to the respondent and directed the Additional Sessions Judge to take immediate action against the petitioner for not surrendering.
|
