Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gorelal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2016
1 CRR.595.2014
Gorelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
16.06.2016
Shri Shishir Kumar Saxena, counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of maintainability of the
present petition.
The applicant has filed the present revision
against the judgment dated 26.02.2014 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District
Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2013 whereby
the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction
as well as sentence recorded by the trial court i.e.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, District
Guna (M.P.) vide order dated 13.12.2012 passed in
Criminal Case No.773/2007 whereby the applicant
was found guilty of offence under Section 120B and
409 of IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous
imprisonment on each count with a total fine of
Rs.5,000/-.
Facts of the case, in short, are that the
applicant did not appear before the appellate court when the judgment was pronounced and therefore it was directed by the appellate court to the applicant Gorelal to surrender before the trial court so that the sentence may be executed. The applicant did not surrender and filed the present revision. The application was moved for exemption of his surrender and the same was dismissed on 11.11.2014 by the Single Bench of this Court and no SLP has been filed before the Apex Court and 2 CRR.595.2014 Gorelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh therefore the order dated 11.11.2014 has attained finality.
It is the duty of the accused to surrender after disposal of the appeal in case of a conviction and there is a provision under Rule 48 of Chapter X of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 to that effect. In this connection, the Single Bench of this Court has passed the order in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. [2012(3) MPLJ 534] in which it is held that when the words of a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In that order, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bihari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2000) 10 SCC 346] has been relied on. In these circumstances, it was mandatory for the applicant to surrender before the trial court in compliance of the judgment passed by the appellate court and if no compliance is made then present revision is barred according to the provision contained under Rule 48 of Chapter X of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008. Hence, the present revision is not maintainable. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.
Copies of the order be sent to the courts below along with their respective records for information and consequential compliance.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd