Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Purohit vs Akil on 11 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.442 of 2025
11th July, 2025
Deepak Purohit ..........Revisionist
Versus
Akil ............Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2025, passed by learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2024, Deepak Purohit Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/III ACJ, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.826 of 2023, Akil vs. Deepak Purohit has been affirmed.
2. An Exemption Application (IA No.1/2025) has been moved by the revisionist for exempting him surrendering before the trial court after conviction.
3. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and particularly the fact that he has been convicted by trial court and his appeal has been dismissed by the appellate court, this Court is of the view that revisionist should surrender before the trial court before filing the present revision.
4. This Court is particularly pained by the fact that in spite of the fact that Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules, 1952 being in existence, the revisionist is approaching this Court without surrendering and producing the certificate. Relevant Rules are quoted hereinbelow:-
1"3(4) In a case in which a sentence of imprisonment has been awarded the petition of appeal or the application for revision shall also contain a certificate signed by the Advocate for the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, stating that the accused was not on bail or that, if was on bail, he has surrendered to it. In a case in which bail has been granted by the Court appealed from under sub-section (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the fact shall be stated in the petition of appeal indicating the period for which such bail has been granted."
The bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it quite clear that the rule is of mandatory in nature as the word 'shall' has been used. Moreover, my view is further fortified by recent judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Kausar Khan vs. Ramesh Chandwani in Criminal Revision No.3251 of 2024 decided on 11.11.2024. Relevant paras are herein quoted below:-
"2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that applicant/accused is absconding and despite his conviction from two Courts, he has not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on him. Rule 48 Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 reads as under:-
"48. A memorandum of appeal or revision petition against conviction, except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below, shall contain a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction. Where the sentence has been so suspended, the factum of such suspension and its period shall be stated in the memorandum of appeal or revision petition, as also in the application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall, as far as possible, be in Format No. 11 and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant/applicant or some other person acquainted with the facts of the case."
3. In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not surrendered. Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 30.07.2024, 2 passed in {[Special Leave (Criminal) Diary No.(s).20900 of 2024)] (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, in CRLR No.4402/2022 in the case of Daulat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh} has held that a revision is not maintainable where accused has not surrendered despite his conviction to serve the sentence imposed on him and exemption cannot be allowed by High Court. Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment of Vivek Rai and others Vs. High Court of Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86 and upheld the order of this court and held as under:-
"15. We do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to accept as a sound proposition of law that a high court, in exercise of its inherent power, may grant exemption from surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving effect to orders passed under the Code and/or to prevent abuse of the process of a court."
4. As applicant has not surrendered this revision being filed in violation of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules is not maintainable.
5. Consequently, this revision, being not maintainable, is dismissed."
And Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.6045 of 2024 decided on 04.03.2025 expressed the same view. Rules under scrutiny before Allahabad High Court are pari materia with Rules of Uttarakhand High Court. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below:-
"33. The Allahabad High Court had framed rules known as Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Rule 2 read with Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 categorically provide that a convict should file a certificate along with the criminal revision certifying that, either he was not on bail or if he was on bail, he had surrendered before it and once the said certificate is not accompanied with the revision, it would not be in order and would be liable to be rejected by the High Court. It is noteworthy that the rule making authority in Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 had intentionally used the words "shall also contain a certificate" thereby to make 3 the requirements under the rule mandatory for the revisionist meaning thereby that unless the convict, while filing criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. gives a certificate that he had surrendered, the criminal revision would not be in order and would not be entertained by the High Court. However, if Rule 2 is read with Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952, that leaves the scope for filing an application seeking exemption from surrender by the revisionist on the basis of some extraordinary circumstances and if the said exemption is prayed for, the High Court can take into consideration the said application seeking exemption and can pass necessary order.
34. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is apparent from the record that the revisionist after his conviction by the trial court has not surrendered and even during pendency of his appeal before the appellate court, he did not surrender. The revisionist, while filing the instant criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., has not annexed the certificate as required under Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 that he has surrendered therefore, the instant criminal revision is not in order and as such, in view of the provisions made in Rule 2 of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952, the instant criminal revision cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected."
Where the respective High Courts have dismissed the revisions filed without complying with the pari materia rules as which is there in part III Chapter XVIII, Rule 3(4) of the Uttarakhand High Court Rules. Moreover, a pari materia Rules of Jharkhand High Court has been held to be intra vires in the case of Vivek Rai & another vs. High Court of Jharkhand; 2015 (12) SCC 86 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. This Court is although cognizant of the judgment given by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shubham Singhal vs. High Court of Uttarakhand decided on 26.05.2023 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.84 of 2023, but after going through the judgment, this Court is of the view that the said Bench has not considered Part III Chapter 4 XVIII, Rule 3(4) of the Uttarakhand High Court Rules and has also opined only to the extent that the registry will not insist upon the certificate, but has nowhere opined that the Bench of this Court which is seized of the matter can also not insist upon the production of the said certificate.
6. Accordingly, the exemption application is rejected.
7. List this case on 07.08.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.07.2025 AK 5