Judgment : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 67, 000/- as compensation, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are arguable points involved in this revision. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as there is absolutely no legally enforceable liability on his part. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that there are enough materials available on record through cross-examination of the witness to show that there is no legally enforceable liability. Hence, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for admission and suspension of sentence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the business commitments the petitioner was not in a position to appear before the lower appellate Court on the date of judgment of conviction. 4. In respect of the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Bihari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2000) SCC (Crl) 1380. In the above said decision, Their Lordship have held that for seeking suspension of sentence the accused need not be under confinement. 5. In respect of the same question of law viz., whether the accused concerned in the revision against conviction, has to surrender and thereafter only seek the relief of suspension of sentence, the Honourable Mr. Justice Khalid (as he then was) has held in the decision reported in Ibrahim v. State of Kerala (1979) KLT 857 has held that in respect of the revision against conviction and sentence, for granting the relief of Suspension of sentence, the accused need not surrender and undergo confinement and filling revision without surrendering and confinement is well within the power contemplated under Section 397 (1) of Cr. P.C. as Section 397(1) Cr.P.C itself is very clear that there is absolutely no ambiguity as the reading of the words “ direct that execution of any sentence or order be suspended”. 6. P.C. as Section 397(1) Cr.P.C itself is very clear that there is absolutely no ambiguity as the reading of the words “ direct that execution of any sentence or order be suspended”. 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that in these matters, more particularly in respect of any revision against conviction the accused need not surrender and undergo confinement for seeking the relief of suspension of sentence pending disposal of the criminal Revision. The Courts are coming across the difficulties of the accused and more particularly in the cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act and other compoundable offences where there is possibility of compounding the offence within a short period and in such event, insisting upon the accused concerned to undergo the confinement for seeking the relief of suspension of sentence, may result in miscarriage of justice. 7. Therefore, in view of the fact that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and there are arguable points involved in the revision, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and further the revision is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, I am of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence. 8. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that he executes a bond for a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., pending revision. This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.