3.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that based on the private complaint filed by the respondent herein, the Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, has taken the case on file in C.C.No.273 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC and finally by the judgment dated 05.09.2019 has convicted both the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also directed each of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant, in default, to undergo further three months simple imprisonment. He further submitted that since on the date of judgment, the petitioners not appeared before Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, has issued NonBailable Warrants. On the very next day that is on 06.09.2019, the accused No.2 has filed the petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., to recall the said warrant and accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the petition under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence. The learned Judicial Magistrate has returned both the petitions stating that since the judgment was pronounced in the case on 05.09.2019 and thereafter he is not having power to entertain those applications. He further submitted that subsequently, both the petitioners have filed an appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and also filed a petition for suspension of sentence, but the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, has returned the said petition by saying that since already this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.24420 & 24424 of 2019 has suspended the sentence, how the said petition is maintainable before the Appellate Court. He further submitted that the Principal Sessions Judge may be directed to entertain the suspension of sentence petition and dispose of in accordance with law.
