CRL MP/19190/2019 of V.MAA.RAMESH Vs K.NAGALAKSHMI on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand NineteenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.19190 of 2019

IN CRL.RC.NO.1523 OF 2019

V.MAA.RAMESH [ PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED ]Vs K.NAGALAKSHMI [ RESPONDENT ]

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein andin the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.RC.NO.1523 OF 2019 on the fileof the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend theimprisonment imposed on to the petitioner by the Appellate Courtand judgment dated 23.10.2019 made in C.A.No.389/2018 (On the fileof the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode)confirming the judgment dated 22.11.2018 made in S.T.C.NO.114 of2017 on the file Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erodein CRL.RC.NO.1523 OF 2019 [IN CRL.MP.NO.19190 OF 2019]

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusingthe petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.RC.NO.1523 OF2019 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the argumentsof M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN, Advocate for the petitioner, the court madethe following order:- Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to 1 year S.I. and topay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in default 2 monthsS.I. by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court I, Erode,under judgment dated 22.11.2018 in S.T.C.No.114 of 2017. Theconviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was confirmedby learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, underjudgment dated 23.10.2019 in Crl.A.No.389 of 2018. Hence,petitioner seeks suspension of sentence.

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 thematerial particulars between the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses. It is further represented that there is noprecondition requiring the petitioner's surrender or being inconfinementin availing the relief of suspension of sentence underSection 397 Cr.P.C. in exercise of revisional powers by thisCourt. The decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in BIHARIhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/PRASAD SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2000 SCC (Cri) 1380)

and that of the IBRAHIM VS STATE OF KERALA (1979 KLT 857) arerelied upon in this regard.

3. The above decisions have been relied upon time and againby this Court towards reaching the conclusion that in moving arevision against conviction, the accused need not surrender andundergo confinement before seeking the relief of suspension ofsentence pending 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 thepetitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant ofsuspension of sentence.

5. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonmentalone is suspended and the petitioner is directed to be enlargedon bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond fora sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two suretieseach for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned JudicialMagistrate, Fast Track Court I, Erode, and on further conditionthat the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on thefirst working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending revision.

-sd/- 30/12/2019This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO

1 THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ANDSESSIONS JUDGE, ERODE.

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, ERODE.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEERODE [FOR INFORMATION]

+1C.C. to M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessarycharges SR NO.26696