Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Sao vs Raghunandan Sao on 26 June, 2025
1/4
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.06.26
17:54:27 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 724 of 2025
MANOJ KUMAR SAO versus RAGHUNANDAN SAO
Order Sheet
26/06/2025 Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate for the Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
Vide order dated 31/10/2023, passed in RCC
No.8027/2017 (Raghunandan Sao vs Manoj Kumar
Sao), Learned JMFC, Durg convicted the
applicant/accused Manoj for offense under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
sentenced him RI for 10 months and ordered to
deposit Rs 2,24,000/- to the complainant as
compensation within 03 months which has been
challenged by the applicant in CRA No.307/2023
(Manoj Kumar Sao Vs. Raghunandan Sao)
Vide order dated 17/04/2025, affirming the
order of conviction and sentence of the learned JMFC,
the appeal was dismissed by the Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg.
Applicant Manoj Kumar Saw was absent on the
appeal decision dated 17/04/2025. The judgment
was passed in his absence and his bail bond was
cancelled and the trial Court was directed to take
action to make him undergo the sentence.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant submits that the complainant/respondent
is absent today due to some reasons, hence a date in
the second week of July may be given for hearing. He
further submits that application under Section 147 of
the NI ACT (IA No.01/2025), application for grant of
interim relief and suspension of sentence (IA
No.02/2025) and application seeking exemption from
surrender are also pending.
The counsel further argued that both the parties
have reached a compromise, hence considering this
case as an exceptional case, exemption from
surrender may be given and the suspension
application may be allowed. In support of his
argument, he rely upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Rai
and others Vs. High Court of Jharkhand through
Registrar General and others reported in (2015) 12
SCC 86 in which in paragraph 11, it has been held as
under:-
"11. It has not been disputed
even by the learned counsel for the
High Court that the Rule does not
affect the inherent power of the High
Court to exempt the requirement of
surrender in exceptional situations. It
cannot thus, be argued that
prohibition against posting of a
revision petition for admission applies
even to a situation where on an
application of the petitioner, on a case
being made out, the Court, in exercise
of its inherent power, considers it
appropriate to grant exemption from
surrender having regard to the nature
and circumstances of a case. Thus,
the exception as found in the
corresponding Supreme Court Rules
that if the Court grants exemption
from surrender and directs listing of a
case, the Rule cannot stand in the
way of the Court's exercise of such
jurisdiction, has to be assumed in the
impugned Rule."
Rule 113 of The High Court of Chhattisgarh
Rules, 2007 is also reproduced as under:-
"113. Revisions arising out of
conviction and sentence of
imprisonment shall be posted for
admission only after the applicant
has surrendered."
If I consider the case in question as per the
above cited judgment and Rule, then from perusal of
the decision of the appellate court dated 17/04/2025,
it is reflected that the applicant/accused Manoj
Kumar Sao was not present on the date of decision
i.e. 17.04.2025 and the order was passed by the
appellate Court in his absence. Therefore, this case
appears to be an exceptional case. This trend is
generally seen that the accused become absent on the
date of judgment and submit a revision application in
violation of the legal provision and rule.
In the above situation, if the applicant is given
exemption in this case, then the said trend of
violation will be encouraged and the legal provision
and rule will not be followed. Therefore, this case is
found to be exceptional and it is not found
appropriate to give exemption to the
applicant/accused.
Therefore, the application for exemption from
surrender is rejected. In this situation, the
applicant/accused is directed to surrender before the
trial Court at the earliest and upon receipt of the
information, further hearing on this revision
application will be taken up.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
