Judgment : 1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Criminal Revision Case Number 1840 of 2007) on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Jayakumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of J.C. Durai Raj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent the Court made the following order:- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sole accused and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 468 IPX, and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. sentenced to fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is said to have forged the mark sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has not produced any incriminating materials to implicate the petitioner for the alleged offence. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not even chosen to obtain any expert opinion to prove the allegation of forgery. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to illness the petitioner was not able to appear before the appellant Court and his absence was neither wilful nor wanton. 3. In respect of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note the settled principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Bihari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2000) SCC (Cr1) 1380. In the above said decision, Their Lordships have held that for seeking suspension of sentence, the accused need not be under confinement. 4. In the above said decision, Their Lordships have held that for seeking suspension of sentence, the accused need not be under confinement. 4. 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 filing 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 to suspended.” 5. In view of the above, the Court is 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. 6. A perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction shows that there are arguable points involved in this revision. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the settled principles of law by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as by His Lordship Justice KHALID (as he then was) as stated above and also considering the fact that the revision may not be taken up for final hearing in the near future, the Court is of the considered view, that the revision petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.00 a.m. pending disposal of the revision. F