Madras High Court
Samikannu vs The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The … on 22 July, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in
Crl A(MD)No.766 of 2026
Samikannu ...Petitioner /sole accused
Vs
The State rep by
the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Tiruchirappalli,
[Crime No.33 of 2010] ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed in
SplSC.No.74 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli dated 29.05.2026 and enlarge the
petitioner on bail till the disposal of the criminal appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthu Kamatchi
For Respondent : Mr.Robinson,
Government Advocate
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in SplSC.No.74 of 2012 on the
file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Tiruchirappalli. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:
Sl. Offence Punishment Fine default class
No (in Rs)
1 Section 7 of the 2 years 3 months simple
Prevention of imprisonment 5,000 imprisonment
Corruption Act
2 Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1)(d) of 2 years 5,000 3 months simple
Prevention of imprisonment imprisonment
Corruption Act
As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal
before this court in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026 and the same has been
admitted by this court. The petitioner along with the appeal has moved
this petition seeking to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial court.
2.The petitioner has stated in the petition that he is not in jail and
he claims that the sentence imposed by the trial court has been suspended
by the trial court in CrMP.No.237 of 2026 in SplSC.No.74 of 2012 by
order dated 29.05.2026. The sentence was suspended by the trial court
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
under Section 389(3) of the CrPC to enable the petitioner to file an
appeal before this court, for a period of 30 days up-to 28.06.2026.
The petitioner has moved this petition on 29.06.2026 and the same was
listed for hearing on 07.07.2026.
3.The learned Government Counsel submits that the trial court has
suspended the sentence by order dated 29.05.2026 for a period of 30 days
and the petitioner has not surrendered on expiry of the order passed by
the trial court.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the above
submissions and submits that the trial court in CrlMP.No.296 of 2026 by
order dated 29.06.2026 has extended the suspension of sentence up-to
15.07.2026 and therefore, the period of suspension according to him has
been extended and therefore there is no need of surrendering.
5.The learned Government Counsel opposed this contention and
submits that the trial court cannot extend the period of suspension under
Section 389(3) of CrPC beyond a period of 30 days. He further submits
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
that once the power of suspending the sentence has been exercised by the
trial court under Section 389(3) CrPC, the trial court cannot pass further
orders to extend the suspension of sentence. According to him,
the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court on 29.06.2026 and the
same has been numbered and listed on 02.07.2026. When the appeal is
pending before this court, the petitioner has been simultaneously granted
the relief in a mechanical manner by the trial court by extending the
suspension of sentence till 15.07.2026. He contends that the order of the
trial court extending the suspension of sentence till 15.07.2026 is not
valid and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for suspension of
sentence without surrendering before the court.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the
subsequent order passed by the trial court in CrlMP.No.296 of 2026,
dated 29.06.2026 and the same reads as under:
“Both side heard. The reason stated in the petition
is accepted circumstances of this petition and interest of
justice suspend of set off time is extension till 15.07.2026.
Hence this petition is allowed.”4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
7.Since the learned Government Counsel has raised a preliminary
objection to this petition, this court is inclined to examine the power of
the trial court to extend the period of suspension, when the power under
Section 389(3) has already been exercised by the trial court.
8.The petitioner has been convicted by the Special Court for
Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli in SplSC.No.74 of
2012 on 29.05.2026 as stated supra. As against the orders of the Special
Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli, appeal
lies before this court. Accordingly, the appeal has been filed before this
court and it has been admitted by this court on 06.07.2026.
The appellate court is having powers under Section 389(1) of CrPC to
suspend the sentence pending the appeal for reasons to be recorded in
writing. The trial court is empowered under Section 389 (3) of CrPC to
release the convicted person in certain circumstances for a limited period
to afford sufficient time to enable such a person to present appeal and for
obtaining orders of the appellate court under 389(1) CrPC. Section 389
of the CrPC is extracted hereunder for reference:
5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026“Section 389 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
(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.
Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before
releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is
convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years,
shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing
cause in writing against such release:
Provided further that in cases where a convicted person
is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to
file an application for the cancellation of the bail.
(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 a 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
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026convicted is 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 afford
sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders 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.”
9.In Mammooty And Ors. vs. Food Inspector [AIR 1987 Kerala
270], a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court explained the scope of
Section 389 CrPc and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“13…..Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 389 are part
of a scheme; subsection (1) enables the appellate court to
suspend sentence and grant bail in all cases, though for
reasons to be recorded in writing while Sub-section (3) confers
on the convicting court a limited power in a narrower field to
grant bail to a convicted person to afford him an opportunity
to present an appeal and obtain orders of the Appellate
Court.”
10.Therefore, the power of the trial court under Section 389(3)
CrPC operates on a narrower field and only to afford sufficient time to
the convicted person to present the appeal and to obtain orders of the
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
appellate court under Section 389(1) of CrPC. This power has already
been exercised by the trial court in CrMP.No.237 of 2026 by its order
dated 29.05.2026 wherein it has suspended the sentence for 30 days
enabling the appellant to approach the appellate court and to obtain bail.
Section 389(3) CrPC does not provide that the trial court can extend this
period of suspension of sentence. Therefore, when the trial court has
already exhausted the statutory mandate under Section 389(3) CrPC, it
cannot extend the same by entertaining further application.
11.It is relevant to note that as per Section 362 CrPC, once a
criminal court has signed its judgment or final order, it becomes functus
officio and has no scope to revisit the matter except for the correction of
clerical or arithmetical errors. Therefore, the second order passed by the
trial court in CrMP No.296 of 2026 is also barred under Section 362 of
CrPC. Section 389 (3) of CrPC does not specify the time limit for
suspending the sentence and allows the trial court to suspend the
sentence for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the
appeal. No doubt, the limitation period for filing an appeal before this
court is 60 days from the date of conviction. However, when the trial
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
court has already suspended the sentence for a period of 30 days time by
way of its initial order, this court is of the opinion that it cannot entertain
subsequent application when it has already become functus officio.
12.It is also relevant to consider the decision of this court in
P.Ramakrishnan vs. Rani Rambai [2012 (1) MWN (Cr) (DCC) 97
(Mad)]. In this case, the convicted person has approached the trial court
seeking extension of suspension of sentence without obtaining bail from
the appellate court and the same was returned by the trial court that the
convict cannot file successive applications seeking to extend the period
of suspension. The convicted person has challenged the same in
P.Ramakrishnan (referred supra) and this court held that the petition
filed for extension of suspension of sentence is misconceived and it
amounts to abuse of process of the court. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:
“7. The narration of above facts would clearly go to
show that the present Petition is not only highly misconceived
but also it amounts to a clear abuse of process of Court. Under
Section 389(3) Cr.P.C, the trial Court has got power to suspend
the sentence for a maximum period within which an appeal is9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026to be preferred by the convict as per the provisions of the
Limitation Act. The learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to
grant suspension beyond 30 days from the date of imposition of
sentence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in
returning the petition filed by the petitioner seeking extension
of suspension of sentence. It needs to be mentioned that the
date of conviction is on 19.10.2011 and the sentence was
suspended rightly by the learned Magistrate till 18.11.2011.”
13.This ratio has been followed in another decision of this court in
Velusamy Vs. Shanmugam and another [CrlOP(MD)No.14400 of 2016
dated 11.08.2016]. Therefore, this court is of the view that the trial court
has exhausted its statutory mandate and became functus officio after
passing the order dated 29.05.2026 in CrMP.No.237 of 2026 and the
subsequent order passed in CrlMP.No.296 of 2026 on 29.06.2026
extending the period of suspension till 15.07.2026 is not proper and the
same is barred under Section 362 CrPC.
14.For the above reasons, this court is not inclined to accept the
contention of the petitioner that the suspension of sentence has been
extended by the trial court till 15.07.2026. Therefore, this petition is
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial
court and thereafter file an application before this court under
Section 389(1) CrPC.
22.07.2026
DSK
Note: Issue order copy today
To
1.The Special Judge for
Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Tiruchirappalli.
Copy to
The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026
in CrlA(MD)No.766 of 2026
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
DSK
CrlMP(MD)No.13092 of 2026 in
Crl A(MD)No.766 of 2026
22.07.2026
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
