Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THE present petitioner faced trial for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Complaint No. 600 dated 30.10.2007/2.3.2012 and was convicted by the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2013 and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and further to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 45 lacs in terms of Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of passing of order and in default of payment of compensation the petitioner was to further undergo RI for a period of three months in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 (4) SCC 551. Aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged by way of filing an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.4.2014 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
(2.) AFTER loosing the case before the two Courts below, the present revision petition has been filed by raising various arguments. Revision requires consideration and the same is admitted. Crl. Misc. No. 16966 of 2014 Vide order dated 26.5.2014, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of cheque in dispute to contest the judgment of conviction on merit. Accordingly, the amount of cheque was ordered to be deposited in the shape of fixed deposit for a period of three years in the name of Registrar General of this Court within a period of 45 days and the case was adjourned for 8.7.2014. On 8.7.2014, learned Counsel for the petitioner had produced before this Court FDR No. 5145139 dated 1.7.2014 in the name of Registrar of this Court for a period of three years and, accordingly, notice of motion was issued. It was also brought to the notice of the Court on that date that the petitioner has not surrendered after dismissal of his appeal and hence is not in custody.
(3.) IN response to notice of motion, Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 30.7.2014 and submitted that the petitioner has not surrendered after dismissal of his appeal before the lower appellate Court and order of suspension of sentence cannot be passed without his surrendering before the Court. The case was adjourned on the request of learned Counsel for the parties to address arguments as to whether the arrest/surrender of accused is necessary before passing of order of suspension of sentence.;