Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
No Universal Guidelines For Suspension of Sentences; Judicial Discretion To Be Exercised Case By Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court
|The Court held that in the absence of specific High Court rules mandating surrender, a criminal revision petition and application for suspension of sentence remain maintainable, but the decision to grant relief lies within the Court’s judicial discretion.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there can be no exhaustive or universal guidelines for exercising judicial discretion while considering applications for suspension of sentence in criminal revision petitions.
The Court clarified that in the absence of any rule mandating surrender under the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules, such petitions are maintainable even if the convict has not surrendered. However, the desirability of granting relief depends on the facts and conduct of the petitioner in each case.
The ruling came in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and seeking suspension of sentence pending revision proceedings.
Justice Sumeet Goel, while pronouncing the order, observed, "No universal guidelines or parameters can possibly be enumerated for exercise of this judicial discretion by this High Court while considering such an application for suspension of sentence."
Advocate Sandeep Singh appeared for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General Gurpartap S. Bhullar appeared for the State.
Background
The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on appeal, with the judgment being pronounced in the petitioner’s absence as he did not appear before the Appellate Court on the date of the decision.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging both orders and simultaneously moved applications seeking time to surrender and suspension of his substantive sentence.
The petitioner argued that the findings of the trial and appellate courts were unsustainable and highlighted his absence before the lower appellate court due to ill health caused by heart-related ailments.
The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner intentionally evaded appearing before the appellate court to delay the execution of the sentence and lacked bona fides. It urged the Court to dismiss the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner had not surrendered and was not in custody.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which confer revisional jurisdiction upon the High Courts. It emphasised that these provisions do not impose any statutory requirement mandating surrender before invoking revisional powers.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Bihari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Vivek Rai v. High Court of Jharkhand, the Court observed that while certain High Courts have framed rules requiring surrender before filing revision petitions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules contain no such condition.
Consequently, the Court concluded that while such petitions are maintainable, the question of whether to grant suspension of sentence depends on several factors, including the petitioner’s bona fides and conduct, sufficiency of reasons provided for non-surrender, and the need to balance fairness with respect for the judicial process.
While addressing the scope of judicial discretion in applications seeking suspension of sentence, the Court observed that such decisions cannot be governed by fixed or uniform standards. It held that the exercise of discretion must remain flexible and case-specific, ensuring that fairness and equity are maintained without undermining the authority of the judicial process.
Furthermore, cautioning that entertaining such petitions should not be seen as condoning deliberate defiance of court orders, Justice Goel remarked:
"Where the conduct of the petitioner-accused reflects evasion or contumacious disregard of process of law, the Court must lean against the grant of suspension of sentence, lest, it may tantamount to condoning inexplicable defiance of judicial process."
Conclusion
Holding the petition maintainable, the Court granted the petitioner time to surrender before the trial court, considering his medical condition. It directed that if he failed to comply, the trial court should take immediate steps to secure his custody.
The main criminal revision petition and the application for suspension of sentence were listed for further hearing on 1 September 2025, along with the original records from the trial and appellate courts.
Cause Title: Harcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: CRR-1704-2025 (O&M)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Sandeep Singh
Respondent: AAG Punjab Gurpartap S. Bhullar