Surrender before appeal judgment and concurrent findings barred revisional interference in a convicted accused's challenge.

A revisional challenge was treated as not maintainable where the convicted accused had not surrendered before the appellate court when the appellate judgment was pronounced. The text states that Section 389 CrPC permits suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal, but does not leave discretion to the appellate court to invoke that provision at the stage of pronouncing the appeal judgment in the absence of surrender. It also notes that revisional interference was not warranted because both courts below had returned concurrent findings. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was maintainable when the convicted accused had not surrendered before the appellate court, and whether interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings.

Analysis: The accused had not surrendered before the appellate court at the time of pronouncement of the appellate judgment. The Court held that the scheme of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on bail in the manner provided therein, but does not leave discretion to the appellate court to apply that provision at the stage of pronouncing the appeal judgment in the absence of surrender. On that basis, the Court held that, without surrender, the revision was not maintainable. The Court further noted that both courts below had returned concurrent findings and no revisional interference was called for.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable for want of surrender and, in any event, no interference was justified on the concurrent findings.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence stood undisturbed, and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A convicted accused who has not surrendered before the appellate court cannot maintain a revision against the appellate order in the circumstances considered, and revisional interference is unwarranted where the courts below have recorded concurrent findings.

---