ORDER: The petitioner was originally convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Sec.498-A, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in C.C.No.134 of 1995, by his judgment dated 26.12.1996. The accused went on appeal and the appeal was heard in C.A.No.10 of 1997 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli who after hearing both sides, acquitted the petitioner/accused by his judgment dated 21.4.1998, Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court, the complainant in the Police case went on revision in Crl.R.C.No.524 of 1998 and this Court set aside the order of acquittal and then remanded the matter to the appellate Court after hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner, chose to confirm the order of trial Court. Hence, revision has been filed in Crl.R.C.No.752 of 2000 by the accused petitioner. Pending Criminal revision, he has filed this Crl.M.P. for suspension of sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/revision petitioner submits that as per Sec.397 of Criminal Procedure Code, the moment the revision is admitted for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness or legality of the order passed by the appellate Court, this Court while calling for the records can direct the execution of sentence to be suspended. Admittedly, in this case, the accused/revision petitioner was not present at the time of pronouncing appellate judgment and the judgment was pronounced in his absence and since, it is a judgment of conviction, the appellate Court issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused to undergo the sentence of imprisonment; Sec.397(1) says that while suspending the execution of the sentence, this Court can release the accused on bail, if he is in confinement. In case, the accused is not in confinement, the question of release of the accused on bail does not arise. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case mere suspension of execution of sentence alone would suffice and there is no necessity to pass any order regarding the release of the accused on bail since, the accused is not in confinement. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case mere suspension of execution of sentence alone would suffice and there is no necessity to pass any order regarding the release of the accused on bail since, the accused is not in confinement. At this stage, the most point that requires decision as to whether the execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed by the Appellate Court can be suspended while a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused to undergo imprisonment is pending. 3. Learned counsel relied on the ruling of this Court rendered in Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2000, in which this Court has held that the Court may direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and if the accused is in confinement that he shall be released on bail. According to the counsel, nowhere the Section says that only after surrender, the petitioner should prefer this revision. On this ground, the learned Judge admitted the revision in that Crl.R.C. But, in this case, the question of surrender does not arise. But we are concerned with a position where the prayer before this Court for suspension of sentence has to be answered in a situation where the non-bailable warrant was issued and pending against the petitioner for his arrest towards execution of the sentence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the ruling reported in Ibrahim v. State of Kerala, 1979 K.L. T. 857. The point that arose in that case was whether the revisional Court should insist upon the surrender of the accused before ordering suspension of sentence. The Kerala High Court in the above said ruling has held as follows: “The appellate Court has always power to get the attendance of the accused before it by directing him to appear when the judgment is pronounced. And if he does not appear, the Court has power to issue a warrant for his appearance and to pronounce the judgment only when he appears. When the appellate Court does not take recourse to this procedure, the Code does not insist upon the surrender of the accused to custody by the revisional Court before suspending the sentence”. 4. No doubt, the appellate Court, in this case did not adopt the procedure suggested in the above said ruling, but the judgment of conviction was pronounced in the absence of the accused. 4. No doubt, the appellate Court, in this case did not adopt the procedure suggested in the above said ruling, but the judgment of conviction was pronounced in the absence of the accused. Immediately after pronouncing the judgment, the appellate Court has issued non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused towards execution of the sentence. If no warrant has been issued for the arrest of the accused, then this Court has every power to suspend the sentence but once the warrant for arrest has been already issued against the accused/petitioner if this Court after admitting the revision, suspends the execution of the sentence, it would indirectly amount to cancellation of the warrant pending against the accused/revision petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this stage submits that the moment this Court suspends the sentence, the warrant pending against the accused becomes infructuous. But unfortunately, under Sec.70(2) of the Crl.P.C. the warrant issued of the arrest can be cancelled only by the Court which issued it. Moreover, the issuance of the warrant cannot be said to be execution of sentence. But warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued for the purpose of executing the sentence. Even according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, execution has been defined to carry out, to bring into effect. It also says that to carry out a sentence of death on condemned prisoner is execution. 5. Learned Government Advocate, Criminal Side submits that the issuance of warrant cannot be termed as execution of sentence and warrant has been issued only for the purpose of executing the sentence. Therefore, this Court can suspend the execution of sentence under Sec.397; but at the same time, this Court cannot cancel the warrant issued by the Appellate Court nor can this Court recall the warrant issued by that Court. Therefore, under these circumstances, though this Court cannot compel the petitioner to go and surrender before any Court before taking suspension of sentence. The pendency of non-bailable warrant against the accused is a stumbling block for this Court to exercise the power of suspension of sentence in this case. Therefore, under these circumstances, though this Court cannot compel the petitioner to go and surrender before any Court before taking suspension of sentence. The pendency of non-bailable warrant against the accused is a stumbling block for this Court to exercise the power of suspension of sentence in this case. In the absence of any non-bailable warrant, there could not have been any difficulty for this Court suspend the execution of the sentence, after all the sentence of imprisonment is only for two years for an offence under Sec.498-A, Crl.P.C. But the pendency of the warrant alone is an impediment to this Court to suspend the execution of the sentence. In case, the warrant is either executed or the warrant is recalled by the Court, which issued it after the appearance of the accused, there wont’s be any difficulty in suspending the sentence passed on the accused. 6. If the accused appears before the appellate Court pursuant to the warrant pending against him, the accused is deemed to have come to the judicial custody, which amounts to confinement. 7. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, in case, the accused appears before the appellate Court, the appellate Court is directed to recall the warrant and the moment the warrant is recalled, the execution of the sentence passed against the accused, shall stand suspended and the appellate Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000 with two sureties for the like sum to its satisfaction pending disposal of the revision.