Babulal vs Smt. Sheela Jhala
2022 Latest Caselaw 3313 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3313 MP
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Babulal vs Smt. Sheela Jhala on 9 March, 2022

Author: Vivek Rusia

                                       - : 1 :-



  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
   (SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

Criminal Revision No.74/2022 (Babulal V/s. Smt. Sheela Jhala )

Date: 09.03.2022:

Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A. No.193/2022, which is an application under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the applicant.

This application has been filed without surrendering before the Trial Court. Twice this Court has given opportunity to surrender the applicant and press this application but he has failed to do so, therefore, this Court has no option but to dismiss the application as same is not maintainable under High Court Rules. In case of Satyanarayan Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. report in 2021 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) has held that as under:

"9. On perusal of above paragraph, it is apparent that the the Apex Court has opined that there is no such provision under the Criminal Procedure Code which makes it necessary for the accused to surrender after the conviction. However, the Apex Court has also opined that many High Courts have made such provision in their respective Rules and as per Rule 48 of Chapter X of Rules 2008, it is necessary for the accused to surrender after conviction.

10. Further, considering the Rules 2008 as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Prasad (supra), this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu vs. State of M.P., [2012 (3) MPLJ 534] has held as under:-

"7. The basic question is whether as per Rule 48 aforesaid, it is obligatory for the person to surrender on his conviction before filing of the revision.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the language employed in rule 48 makes it crystal clear that a declaration is mandatory for the accused to the effect that he is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction. The only exception provided in the rule is where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below. In other words, except in cases where a sentence was suspended by the Court below The High Court of Madhya Pradesh CRR No. 945/2021 (Satyanarayan Sharma & Anr. vs. State of M.P.) itself, in all other cases there has to be a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction. Thus, the intention of the rule makers is unambiguous and clear regarding giving of such declaration. Needless to mention that an accused can give such declaration only if

- : 2 :-

he is in custody or surrendered after the conviction. Thus, undoubtedly, the intention of Rule is that one has to surrender after conviction or should be in custody except in those cases where sentence has been suspended by the Court. The word shall is used to make it mandatory. This is salutary principle of statutory interpretation 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. Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981.

9. The apex Court also held that if the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver. (para 50) Principles of Statutory Interpretation) (12th Edition 2010 by justice G.P. Singh) the Apex Court also opined that when language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute arises, the Act speaks for itself. In the light of this legal position, I have no hesitation to hold that Rule 48 makes it mandatory for the accused to give declaration about his surrender after the conviction or about the fact regarding his remaining in custody.

10. Since Rule 48, in specific, was not brought to the notice of this Court in Kishore (supra), the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on this aspect. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is 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."