Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 95 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Deepak Sahu vs State Of M.P. on 22 August, 2014

Vikki @ Vikram Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2017

The applicant is still absconding. C According to High Court of M.P. Rules Chapter 10 Rule 48 h revision petition against conviction is tenable only if it contains ig the declaration to the effect that convicted person is in custody or H surrendered after the conviction except the cases where sentence has been suspended by the Court below. While the applicant filed this criminal revision without surrendering himself and has not surrendered despite many opportunities. So this revision is not maintainable. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534 clearly held that revision against conviction- tenability-A revision petition 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 sh Court below.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rakesh vs Lakhanlal on 27 February, 2020

7. As per rule 48 of chapter 10 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2000, a criminal revision having been filed by the applicant/accused is not maintainable as neither his jail sentence awarded by the Appellate Court was suspended by the Court nor he has surrendered before the trial Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012(3) MPHT 82 makes a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction mandatory.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Srivastava - Full Document

Heeralal vs Ramgopal on 1 March, 2017

“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.” Considering this Rule and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Bihari Prasad (supra) case, the Court in Deepak Sahu case held that :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somash Pathak vs Prenarayan Batham on 12 February, 2020

(Emphasis supplied) From the above, it is evident that such a declaration that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after conviction is mandatory in the memorandum of appeal or revision. While addressing THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr. Revision No.5053/2019 (Somash Pathak Vs. Premnarayan Batham) (2) similar controversy, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deepak Sahu Vs State of M.P. (2012 (3) MPLJ 534) has held that a revision petition 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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Balkrishna Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2017

Upon the perusal of the memo of revision, I find that no aforestated declaration is made in the memo of revision. There is no evidence on the record that the applicant has surrendered during the pendency of this revision before the trial court to undergo the jail sentence in the case. While interpreting Rule 48 of Chapter 10 of the M.P. High Court Rules 2008, this Court has held in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. [2012 (3) MPLJ 534] that if the appellate court has convicted and sentenced an accused rejecting his appeal and he has filed the revision challenging the judgment of appellate court, then in the memo of revision it is mandatory of making a declaration on his behalf to the effect since when he is in custody or when he has surrendered before the court concerned to undergo the jail sentence after the pronouncement of judgment of conviction and sentence by the appellate court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammad Naseer vs Sumit Chouksay on 12 April, 2017

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:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Durjan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 18 April, 2017

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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next