Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Naseer vs Sumit Chouksay on 12 April, 2017
CRR-2682-2015
(MOHAMMAD NASEER Vs SUMIT CHOUKSAY)
12-04-2017
None for the parties despite repeated calls.
Today, the case is listed for consideration of the report dated
09.08.2016 submitted by the Registrar (J-II) of this High Court on the
compromise petition filed by the parties.
According to the said report, the applicant has filed this criminal revision
petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.08.2015 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2015 affirming the judgment dated 18.12.2014
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Criminal
Complaint Case No.5591/10 rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant.
The learned J.M.F.C. has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced
thereunder to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay the complainant, who
is the respondent herein, a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- (one lac
seventy five thousand). The Registrar (J-II) has stated in the report that the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise and that the offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable as per Section 147 of the Act. However, the applicant has not made a declaration in the revision petition that he is in jail in connection with the case concerned at the time of filing this revision petition. Nor has he submitted any evidence that during the pendency of this revision he has surrendered before the trial court and that he has been undergoing the jail sentence. Moreover, this Court has not so far suspended his jail sentence.
In the light of the aforesaid observations, I have perused the records of both the courts below, the memorandum of revision and the other material on record. As per the paras 12 and 14 of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, at the time of its pronouncement, the applicant was not present. Thereupon, the learned appellate Judge has directed to the learned Judge of the trial court to take steps for sending the applicant in jail for undergoing the jail sentence. The applicant filed this revision on 15.10.2015. Upon the perusal of the memorandum of revision, I have found that there is no declaration in it to the effect that the applicant has surrendered before the trial court after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment of conviction, whereas such declaration is mandatory as per Rule 48 of Chapter 10 of the M.P. High Court Rules 2008 and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. [2012 (3) MPLJ 534] otherwise the revision is not maintainable. Upon the perusal of the proceedings of various dates of hearing of this revision, I have found that there is no evidence on record till today that the applicant has surrendered before the trial court and that he is undergoing the jail sentence in the case. On 29.07.2016, both the parties of the case have filed the compromise petition (I.A. No.14605/2016). On the proceedings of the said date, this Court has made clear that upon the verification of the compromise, the applicant has to deposit 15% of the total cheque amount before the High Court Legal Services Committee. There is no evidence on record that the applicant has complied with the said direction so far. Taking into consideration the over all facts of the case and the aforesaid report, the applicant is directed to comply with the following condition on the next date of hearing otherwise this revision will be dismissed as not maintainable and the steps will be taken by this Court for the execution of the impugned judgment:
i. To surrender before the trial court concerned and submit documentary evidence thereof before this court.
i. To submit documentary proof that he has deposited a total of 15% of the cheque amount in dispute before the High Court Legal Services Committee.
List the case under the same head on 16.05.2017.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-