CRL MP/19175/2019 of V.MAA.RAMESH Vs K.VALLI on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.R.SWAMINATHANCRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.19175 of 2019IN CRL.RC.NO.1522 OF 2019

V.MAA.RAMESH [ PETITIONER / PETITIONER /PROPRIETORE OF SOLA INTERNATIONALAPPELLANT / ACCUSED ](OIL STORE)

Vs

K.VALLI [ RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT ]RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT ]

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and inthe Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.RC.No.1522/2019 on the file of theHigh Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend theimprisonment imposed on to the petitioner by the Appellate Court andjudgment dated 23.10.2019 made in C.A.No.390/2018 (On the file of IstAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Erode) confirming thejudgment dated 22.11.2018 made in S.T.C.No.459 of 2017 on the fileJudicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing thepetition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.RC.No.1522/2019 on thefile of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments ofM/S.C.S.SARAVANAN, Advocate for the petitioner the court made thefollowing order:- Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to 1 year S.I. and to pay asum of Rs.5,44,000/- as compensation in default 2 months S.I. bylearned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court I, Erode, underjudgment dated 22.11.2018 in S.T.C.No.459 of 2017. The conviction andsentence imposed by the trial Court was confirmed by learned IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, under judgment dated23.10.2019 in Crl.A.No.390 of 2018. Hence, petitioner seekssuspension of sentence.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that there areseveral infirmities and inconsistencies found in the prosecutioncase. It is contended that there are contradictions in the materialparticulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It isfurther represented that there is no precondition requiring thepetitioner's surrender or being in confinement in availing the reliefof suspension of sentence under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in exercise ofrevisional powers by this Court. The decisions of the HonourableApex Court in BIHARI PRASAD SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2000SCC (Cri) 1380) and that of the IBRAHIM VS STATE OF KERALA (1979 KLT857) are relied upon in this regard.

3. The above decisions have been relied upon time and again bythis Court towards reaching the conclusion that in moving a revisionagainst conviction, the accused need not surrender and undergoconfinement before seeking the relief of suspension of sentencepending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

4. Therefore, in view of the fact that there are severalinfirmities in the prosecution case and there are arguable pointsinvolved in the revision, as contended by learned counsel forpetitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitionerherein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

5. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone issuspended and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail oncondition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for alike sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, FastTrack Court I, Erode, and on further condition that the petitionershall appear before the said Court on the first working day of everymonth at 10.30 a.m. pending revision.

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TO

1 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ANDSESSIONS JUDGE, ERODE.

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, ERODE.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

ERODE [FOR INFORMATION]

+1 C.C. to M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessarycharges SR.No.26697