2016 (3) TMI 1427 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition - applicability of Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C. would apply as envisaged by Section 387 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - There are no ground for suspending the sentence awarded to the applicant. Even otherwise, the plea that convict can resort to remedy of revision without any necessity to surrender in compliance with the judgment delivered by the appellate court, is unacceptable - Even Section 397 leaves no room for doubt that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this court may direct that execution of any sentence or order qua the accused be suspended and the accused if in confinement would be released on bail. This court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner, who does not abide by the order of the lower appellate court and fails to surrender, his prayer in revisional jurisdiction for suspension of execution of the sentence would merit outright rejection - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition.
2. Interpretation of Section 397 Cr.P.C. regarding the requirement of surrender before suspension of sentence.
3. Opposing views on the necessity of surrender after conviction upheld by the appellate court.
4. Reference to Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C. in relation to attendance of accused during judgment pronouncement.
5. Application of provisions in Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure Code to the judgment of subordinate appellate Court.
6. Function of the subordinate appellate Court after securing the presence of appellant-accused for pronouncement of judgment.
7. Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 397 to suspend execution of sentence and grant bail.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses an application under section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of a revision petition. The petitioner did not surrender after his conviction was upheld by the appellate court, leading to a debate on the necessity of surrender before the suspension of sentence can be considered.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not explicitly require surrender before considering the suspension of sentence. The discretion to suspend the sentence, even if the petitioner does not surrender after conviction, was emphasized. However, the State counsel opposed the plea, citing Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C., which mandates the attendance of the accused during judgment pronouncement unless specific conditions are met.

3. The court noted that the petitioner's absence after being required to be present by the appellate court, despite efforts made to secure his presence, was a crucial factor. The judgment referred to a relevant observation from the Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, emphasizing the obligation of the subordinate appellate Court to secure the presence of the accused/appellant before pronouncing judgment.

4. The judgment delved into the interpretation of provisions in Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the judgment of the subordinate appellate Court. It highlighted the interplay between Section 387 and Sections 353 (5) and 353 (6), emphasizing the need for the accused to be present during the pronouncement of judgment.

5. Furthermore, the judgment clarified the role of the subordinate appellate Court after securing the presence of the appellant-accused for the pronouncement of judgment. Once the judgment confirming the conviction is pronounced, the subordinate appellate Court cannot suspend the sentence or grant bail, necessitating the accused to seek appropriate relief from the High Court through revision.

6. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 to suspend the execution of the sentence and grant bail. It was established that if the sentence remains unexecuted even after being upheld by the lower appellate court, there is no basis for suspending the same. The petitioner's failure to abide by the lower appellate court's order and surrender led to the outright rejection of the application for suspension of sentence in revisional jurisdiction.

7. In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the order of the lower appellate court and failure to surrender, in line with the legal provisions and precedents cited during the analysis.