Md Rafique vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3104 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Criminal Revision No.235 of 2021
                                              ....

                Md Rafique                                            ....     Petitioner
                                              Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Ashok Kumar Singh                                   .... Opposite Parties

                                          ....
                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner           : Mr. Faiz ur Rahman, Adv.
                For the State                : Ms. Priya Shrestha, APP.
                                             ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

05/25.08.2021 I.A. No. 2999 of 2021 The instant application has been filed for condoning the delay of 199 days in preferring the present revision application.

Learned counsel for the State has no objection.

In view of the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, delay in filing the present revision application is, hereby, condoned.

I.A. No.2999 of 2021 stands allowed.

I.A. No.3000 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed for exempting the revisionist from surrender in pursuance of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015.

The present litigation has started for bouncing the cheque due to insufficient fund and an F.I.R. has been registered being C.P. Case No.189 of 2013 (T.R. No.52 of 2015). On completion of trial, the petitioner has been convicted vide order dated 24.11.2015 by the learned J.M.1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.9,64,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Against the said order, an appeal has been preferred and the appellate court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence as imposed by the court below.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has taken the ground for exemption that he has met with an accident and got his leg fractured, and as such, the petitioner may be exempted from surrender in the court below.

From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has participated in the trial and he has been granted bail. Accident and fracture could not be a ground for not surrendering to the court for serving out the sentence which has been validly imposed upon the convict.

Considering the above facts, this Court finds no ground for exempting the petitioner from surrender. Accordingly, prayer for exemption from surrender in the court below is, hereby, rejected.

I.A. No. 3000 of 2021 stands rejected.

The revisionist is at liberty to surrender in the court below within two weeks failing which the court below is directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the revisionist and to commit him to the jail for serving the rest of the sentence.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/