Mr.Ramesh v. State By

Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2016 in Petitioner/Accused was convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I for offence u/s.279 IPC, 3 months R.I for offence u/s.337 (2 counts) IPC and 1 year R.I for offence u/s.304(A) IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpattu, under judgment dated 06.01.2012 in C.C.No.32 of 2006. Trial Court directed that sentences to run concurrently. The sentence imposed by trial Court was confirmed in respect of offences u/s.337 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial Court in respect of offence u/s.279 IPC was set aside by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu under judgment in C.A.No.6 of 2012 dated 07.01.2016. Hence, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence.

2.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are several infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. It is contended that there are contradictions in material particulars in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further represented that there is no precondition

requiring the petitioner's surrender or being in confinement in availing the relief of suspension of sentence under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in exercise of revisional powers by this Court. The decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in BIHARI PRASAD SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2000 SCC (Cri) 1380) and that of the IBRAHIM VS STATE OF KERALA (1979 KLT 857) are relied upon in this regard.

3. Heard learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] on the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner.

4. The above decisions have been relied upon time and again by this Court towards holding that in moving a revision against conviction, the accused need not surrender and undergo confinement before seeking the relief of suspension of sentence pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and that the revision is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, this Court is of the view that the petitioner herein may be granted the relief of suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpattu and on further condition that petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending revision.

(2/4) Note: Issue order copy on 20.01.2016

Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2016 in

(2/4) Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2016 in Petitioner who stands convicted for offences u/s. 279, 337 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC seeks exemption from surrendering to custody as a pre condition for consideration of his bail application moved in the revision case preferred by him before this Court.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Easwaramurthy Vs.

N.Krishnaswamy (2006) CRI.L.J.4105 which in turn relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Bihari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2000) SCC (Cri) 1380, this Court considers it appropriate to allow this petition as prayed for. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be required to surrender before the trial Court as per order of the appellate Court dated 07.01.2016, pending disposal of the main revision.

(3/4) Note: Issue order copy on 20.01.2016