IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this petition is whether the revisional Court should, in ail cases, insist upon the confinement of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence. The revision petitioner was an accused in C. C. No. 3 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur. He was convicted by the said Court for an offence under S.304-A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under S.304-A. This conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court, but the sentence was reduced to one. year. He has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition to suspend the operation of the sentence. The question that falls for decision is whether it is necessary for the accused to surrender to his bail before the revisional Court suspends the sentence passed against him. For a decision on this point, it is necessary to refer to some of the sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, which detail the powers of the revisional Court, the appellate Court and the Trial Court.

(2.) S.397, 399 and 401 of the Code deal with the powers of revision. Under S.397, revisions can be filed both before the High Court and the Sessions Judge. The jurisdiction of the revisional Court to pass interim orders under S.397(1) is as follows:

(3.) The appearance of the accused to hear the judgment pronounced in the Trial Court is provided for in S.353(5) and (6) of the Code, with the proviso. This section falls in Chap.27 of the Code. Under this section, it is mandatory that the accused, if in custody, should be brought up to hear the judgment before the Trial Court, and if he is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to be present to hear the judgment except where his personal attendance, during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or that he is acquitted. This means that in cases where the presence of the accused is dispensed with but he is to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he should be present to hear the judgment. S.387 deals with the procedure for securing the presence of the accused in subordinate appellate Court. S.387 reads as follows: