M.Sivakumar, Aged 51 Years v. Sakunthala, Aged 58 Years

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.V. MURALIDARAN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2360 of 2018 IN CRL RC.226/2018 M.SIVAKUMAR [ PETITIONER ] Vs SAKUNTHALA, AGED 58 YEARS [ RESPONDENT ] D/O.MAHADEVAIYAR, AGRAHARAM, MELATHURAIYUR, VIDAIYALKARUPPUR, VALANGAIMAN TALUK, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in Criminal Revision Case No.226/2018 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in C.A.No.02 of 2016 dated 08/12/2017 which was modifying the sentence imposed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman passed in STC No.126 of 2014 by it judgment dated 21.12.2015 and grant bail to the Petitioner pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition NO.226/2018 Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.Revision Case No.226/2018 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of MR.A.

SELVENDRAN, Advocate for the petitioner the court made the following order:- Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months S.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d to undergo one month S.I. by learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman, under judgment in S.T.C.No.126 of 2014 dated 21.12.2015. The appeal preferred by petitioner in C.A.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, came to be dismissed under judgment dated 08.12.2017.

Hence, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that there are several infirmities and inconsistencies found in the case. It is contended that there are contradictions in the material particulars between the evidence of the 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, the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. The above decisions have been relied upon time and again by this Court towards reaching the conclusion 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. Therefore, in view of the fact that there are several infirmities in the case and there are arguable points involved in the revision, as contended by learned counsel for petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

6. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman, and on further condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the cheque amount before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman, within a period of three weeks and also the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending revision.

-sd/- 20/02/2018 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVARUR.

2 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALANGAIMAN THIRUVARUR.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVARUR. [FOR INFORMATION] C.C. to M/S.A.SELVENDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Order in CRL MP.2360/2018 in CRL RC.226/2018 Date :20/02/2018 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format MLT-22/02/2018