Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Sud vs Neeraj Handa on 3 May, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4598/2019 Ravindra Sud Vs. Neeraj Handa Gwalior, Dated : 03.05.2021 Shri Rahul Bansal, Proxy Counsel for Shri Kuldeep Thapak, for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission as well as for suspension of sentence through Video Conferencing.
This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 04.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.A. No.473/2017 thereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated 09.08.2017 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.7626/2015, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
It appears that the present revision has been filed without surrendering after the dismissal of the appeal.
It is submitted by Shri Rahul that the Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Prasad Singh VS. State of Bihar and another reported in (2000) 10 SCC 346 has held that there is no provision in CrPC, which requires that the applicant should be in jail before filing the criminal revision and, accordingly, it is prayed that this revision is maintainable.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4598/2019 Ravindra Sud Vs. Neeraj Handa Rule 48 of 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."
Thus, it is clear that for maintaining the criminal revision, the applicant must make a declaration to the effect that either he is in custody or has surrendered after his conviction.
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of MP reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534 has held that in view of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008, revision without surrendering before the Trial Court is not maintainable. Even otherwise, in the case of Bihari Prasad Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that as per Rules of Patna High Court, there is no such requirement that the applicant must surrender before filing the criminal revision, whereas as already pointed out, as per the provisions of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules, 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4598/2019 Ravindra Sud Vs. Neeraj Handa 2008, the revision must contain a declaration to the effect that either he is in custody or has surrendered after his conviction..
Under these circumstances, it is held that the revision without surrendering before the Trial Court is not maintainable.
It is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant is granted liberty to file a fresh criminal revision after surrendering before the Trial Court.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.05.04 11:31:06 +05'30'