Suspension of sentence in revision need not await surrender; revisional courts may grant relief directly under CrPC principles.

Section 397(1) CrPC empowers a revisional court to suspend execution of a sentence or order without first insisting that the accused surrender or undergo confinement. The provision treats an accused already in confinement differently from one at liberty: if confined, the court may direct release on bail pending examination of the record; if not confined, the court may still suspend the sentence directly. Applying that principle, the Madras High Court noted that the sentence for a Section 138 NI Act conviction could be suspended on terms pending revision, and interim suspension was granted accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an accused seeking suspension of sentence in revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must first surrender and undergo confinement. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved to be suspended in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether an accused seeking suspension of sentence in revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must first surrender and undergo confinement.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 397(1) expressly permits the Court to suspend execution of a sentence or order. The provision distinguishes between an accused already in confinement and one who is not. If the accused is in confinement, the Court may direct release on bail pending examination of the record. If the accused is not in confinement, the Court may still suspend the sentence without insisting on surrender. The settled position applied in the judgment is that surrender is not a condition precedent for seeking suspension of sentence in revision.

Conclusion: The accused need not surrender or undergo confinement before seeking suspension of sentence in revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved to be suspended in the facts of the case.

Analysis: After applying the above legal principle, the Court found the revision petitioner entitled to interim suspension of the sentence pending disposal of the criminal revision. The sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court, as modified in appeal, was considered fit for suspension on terms.

Conclusion: The sentence was suspended on the conditions imposed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitioner obtained suspension of the custodial sentence pending revision, and the proceeding was disposed of on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a revisional court need not insist on the accused's surrender or confinement before suspending execution of sentence; the court may grant suspension directly and, where the accused is already in confinement, direct release on bail.

---