Court modifies sentence to 3 months imprisonment & fine under Section 138 of N.I. Act

The court modified the petitioner's sentence to three months simple imprisonment and confirmed the fine under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It clarified that surrender is not mandatory for seeking suspension of sentence under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C., emphasizing that confinement is not a prerequisite. The court granted relief by suspending the sentence upon execution of a bond and specified conditions for compliance, highlighting the revisional court's discretion based on the offense's seriousness and the accused's antecedents.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Interpretation of Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. regarding surrender before seeking suspension of sentence.

Issue 1: Challenge to Conviction and Sentence
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The sentence was modified to three months simple imprisonment and the fine was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to difficulties, the petitioner could not surrender before the court, and cited Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. to support the contention that surrender is not necessary for seeking the relief of suspension of sentence.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C.
The court referred to the settled principles of law established by the Supreme Court and a previous judgment by Justice Khalid regarding the interpretation of Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the provision allows for suspension of sentence even if the accused is not in confinement. It was clarified that the revisional court need not insist on the accused being in confinement before ordering suspension of the sentence or order passed against them. The court highlighted the distinction between cases where the accused is in confinement and cases where they are not, emphasizing that surrender is not a prerequisite for seeking suspension of sentence.

Analysis:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. in light of previous judgments to determine that surrender and undergoing confinement are not mandatory for seeking the relief of suspension of sentence pending disposal of a criminal revision. The court noted that insisting on surrender in certain cases, such as those under Section 138 of N.I. Act, could lead to a miscarriage of justice. However, the court also emphasized that the revisional court has the discretion to decline the suspension of sentence based on the seriousness of the offense and the accused's antecedents. Ultimately, the court granted the petitioner relief by suspending the sentence upon execution of a bond and specified conditions for compliance, disposing of the matter accordingly.

---