SUHRA KUNJUMON Vs. ARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are placed for consideration of a Division Bench on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court when it was brought to his Lordship's notice that there is apparent conflict between the two orders of this Court passed in Cr.M.C. No. 4476 of 1997 and Crl.M.C. No. 3751 of 1998 regarding the interpretation of S.389(1) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The question involved in the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases is whether the court of appeal dealing with appeal filed by a convicted person has got the power or authority to impose conditions when it allows an application for suspension of execution of sentence.

(3.) S.389(1) Cr.P.C., empowers the appellate court for suspending execution of sentence when an appeal is filed by a convicted person. There is no specific provision in S.389(1) of the Code which empowers the appellate court to impose conditions. On a reading of S.389(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that suspension of sentence is not automatic and the accused person has no right to get his sentence suspended only due to the reason that he has preferred an appeal. Suspension of sentence is within the realm of discretion of the appellate court and for suspending sentence, reasons are to be recorded in writing. The provisions contained in S.389(1) of the Code will also show that suspension of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of course. The appellate court will have to consider the pros and cons of the matter before taking a decision in an application for suspension of execution of sentence. Reasons are to be recorded by the appellate court in writing while ordering suspension of execution of sentence and release the appellant on bail.