Judgment S.Roy and S.B.Sinha JJ. 1. The petitioner alongwith to of the co-accused was convicted in G. R. Case of No. 3051 of 1978, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment, dated 26-5-1984. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1984 which was dismissed on merits. 2. There after the petitioner alongwith his two co-accused filed a criminal Revision application being Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1986 (R). On 24-6-1986 the Criminal Revisional application was listed for orders and three days time was allowed to the petitioners of that Criminal Revision petition including the petitioner of this case, to file surrender certificates. The order was peremptory. Two of the convicted persons surrendered, but the present petitioner Fuleshwar Ram did not do so. In view of the fact that the petitioner Fuleshwar Ram did not comply with the order, dated 24-6-1986, order was passed on 11-7-1986 that he should be taken into custody forthwith. 3. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous application in which it has been asserted that as there is no law which enjoins that a person convicted of an offence must surrender before the Criminal Revision application filed on his behalf is taken up for admission, he could not have been directed to surrender as was done in Cr. Revision No. 107 of 1986 (R), and has prayed for modification and/or review of the order dated 24-6-1986 and 11-6-1986 passed in the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1986 (R). 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, appealing on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Section 401 read with Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted that as he had been granted bail by the trial court in the case in which he was found guilty, the revisional court could not have directed him to surrender to the sentence before deciding the case on merit. He urged that Standing Order No. 4 of 1986 issued by this Court on 15-4-1968 has no force of law and it could not have been enforced by giving direction to the petitioner to surrender. 5. Section: 397 empowers the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before and inferior criminal court situate within its or his Jurisdiction. 5. Section: 397 empowers the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before and inferior criminal court situate within its or his Jurisdiction. Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows : 397. Calling for records to exercise power of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to High Court or to the Session Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the either of them." 401. High Courts Powers of Revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may in its discretion exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307, and when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and on appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made in the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revison as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly". 6. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is supplemental to Section 397. By reason of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no litigant derives any right thereunder, but the said provision merely conserves the power of the High Court that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisdiction and that the subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their power vested in law upon them. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be evidence that the same applies only after the record of the court below had been called for by this Court. 7. The revisional power of the Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary and in a given case the court may exercise power conferred in a criminal appeal, inter alia, under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In view of the fact that Mr. Bhowmik relied upon Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary to quote the section : Section 389. 8. In view of the fact that Mr. Bhowmik relied upon Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary to quote the section : Section 389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal : release of appellant on bail : (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate court may, for reasons, to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended, and also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the court shall (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment, for a term not exceeding three years, or (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will accord sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the order of the appellate court under sub-section (1) and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended. (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced". 9. From Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will appear that power has been given to the trial court to release a person on bail sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one and he is on bail Section 401 empowers the High Court in its discretion to exercise any power conferred on an appellate court under Section 389. So far Section 389 (3) is concerned, that power cannot be exercised by the appellate Court. So far Section 389 (3) is concerned, that power cannot be exercised by the appellate Court. Power under Section 401 can be exercised by the High Courts in terms of Section 389 thereof only to the extent the same is applicable. So far the power of the appellate court to suspend the sentence or to grant bail to the accused is concerned, the same is conferred upon an appellate court under sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus in terms of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only sub-section (1) of Section 389 thereof would be attracted. There is no question of the appellate courts granting bail to the petitioner for filing revision in this court, as that can be done by the trial court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 389 (3) of the aforesaid Code. 10. It is admitted at the Bar that the practice that a person who files revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to surrender before his application is taken up for admission is being consistently followed by this Court. It was submitted by Mr. Bhowmik with reference to the four criminal revision applications that there was no order given to the petitioner of this case to surrender before his application was taken up for admission. We have already noticed the provisions of Section 401 read with Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the four criminal revision applications were taken up for admission before the petitioners of those had surrendered, in view of the interpretation that we have put to the relevant provisions of sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure the four Criminal Revision applications cannot be treated to be a precedent in support of the arguments advanced by Mr. Bhomik. We notice that Mr Bhowmik did not submit that in those cases specific order was passed by the Bench at the time of admission of the criminal revision application that the petitioners need not surrender. 11. A person who is convicted for commission of an offence is required to be taken into custody immediately after passing of the judgment of conviction and sentence. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for execution of the aforementioned general rules. 11. A person who is convicted for commission of an offence is required to be taken into custody immediately after passing of the judgment of conviction and sentence. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for execution of the aforementioned general rules. So far as an appellate court is concerned, it need not pronounce a judgment after hearing the counsel for the parties in presence of the accused. In the event an appeal is dismissed, the trial court as required to secure attendance of the accused, so that he may serve out the sentence. In the case of dismissal of an appeal by the appellate court, the accused may surrender for serving out the sentence. Standing Order No. 4 of 1968 which provides for filing a surrender certificate is merely for the purpose of ensuring attendance of the accused, so that in the event criminal revision application is dismissed in limine, the accused person may not abscond. The long practice of this High Court in insisting on filing of a surrender certificate cannot thus be said either to be arbitrary or against any provisions of the Constitution of India, or the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal revision application filed in terms of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintain able in the High Court as a matter of course. In that view of the matter, the High Court is certainly entitled to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused person only in the event he fulfills a condition namely he surrenders before the trial court, so that in the event the records of the proceedings of the courts below are called for by the High Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, necessary order for suspension of the sentence or for enlarging the petitioner on bail may be passed. Similarly, in the event the High Court refuses to exercise its tevisional jurisdiction, the accused being in custody, may be required to serve out the sentence. Standing Order No. 4 of 1968 has thus been issued by the High Court in order to secure justice. Similarly, in the event the High Court refuses to exercise its tevisional jurisdiction, the accused being in custody, may be required to serve out the sentence. Standing Order No. 4 of 1968 has thus been issued by the High Court in order to secure justice. However, it goes without saying that as the standing order No. 4 of 1968 is based upon a long standing practice, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction may, in a given case, dispense with the requirement of filing a surrender certificate. Taking thus all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by this Court, in directing the petitioner to file a surrender certificate. 12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Standing Order IV of 1968 issued by this Court cannot be said to be violative of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no force in the submission of Mr. Bhowmik. 13. It appears from a perusal of the record of this case that Honble Mr. Justice S. B. Sanyal who directed the petitioners in Criminal Revision No 107 of 1986 (R) to surrender within the specified time, on non-compliance of the order, dismissed the criminal revision, and himself referred the case before a Division Bench. After hearing submission of Mr Bhowmik and the circumstances of this case, the order, dated 11-7-1986 dismissing the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner, is recalled, and it is ordered that if the petitioner surrenders within ten days from today, the office shall list the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1986 (R) before an appropriate Bench for admission so far as the petitioner is concerned.