Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durjan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 18 April, 2017
1
CRR.808/2016
18.4.2017.
Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, Advocate for the
applicants/revisionistNo.1 and 2.
Shri R.S.Yadav, Public Prosecutor, for the State/
respondent.
Four applicants have preferred this revision against the judgment of their conviction and sentence under Section 325/34 of IPC, dated 10.8.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.132/2016 by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vidisha, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.5.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.1354/2012 by the JMFC, Vidisha, whereby they have convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1-Durjan Yadav and applicant No.2-Anil Yadav were not present before the appellate Court at the time of passing of judgment of conviction.
Thus, from the aforesaid facts it is clear that despite confirmation of their conviction and sentence by the appellate court, the applicants No.1 and 2 have not surrendered to custody and instead filed the present revision petition without incorporating a declaration in the memo of revision to the effect that they are in custody or whether their sentence was suspended by the court below or not at the time of their conviction. But the fact remains that the present revision is filed by the applicants No.1 and 2 without their surrender before the court below. 2 CRR.808/2016
In the case of Deepak Sahu and others vs. State of MP, reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534, this Court while hearing on the maintainability of the revision petition, has held that a criminal revision against conviction is tenable only when it contains a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the court below.
In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court on the point of maintainability, present revision petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed against the applicant No.1-Durjan Yadav and applicant No.2-Anil Yadav.
Let the case be listed for admission after six weeks.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge.
(yogesh)