Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35775
1 CRR-5657-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5657 of 2024
SANDEEP AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shailesh Tiwari, counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Geeta Yadav, G.A. for respondent /State.
ORDER
This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing
the appeal judgement dated 23.10.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.58/2024 (Sandeep and others Vs. the State of M.P. ) by Vth Additional
Session Judge, Chhindwara District- Chhindwara (MP) whereby Appellate
Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.04.2024 passed by learned C.J.M. Chhindwara in RCT No.651/2018
(State of MP Vs. Sandeep and others ) by which applicants were convicted
for commission of offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and
were sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1 year with fine of Rs,25000/-each with
default stipulation.
2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that
applicant/accused is absconding and despite his conviction from two Courts
he has not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on him. Rule 48
Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 reads as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35775
2 CRR-5657-2024
"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."
3. In the case in hand, applicants who are absconding have not filed any
application for exemption from surrender. Hon'ble Apex Court by order
dated 30.07.2024, passed in {[Special Leave (Criminal) Diary No.(s).20900
of 2024)] (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
25.01.2024, in CRR No.4402/2022 in the case of of Daulat Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh} has held that a revision is not maintainable where
accused has not surrendered despite his conviction to serve the sentence
imposed on him and exemption cannot be allowed by High Court. Hon'ble
Apex Court considered the judgement of Vivek Rai and Others Vs.
High Court of Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86 and upheld the order
of this court and held as under:
"15. We do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to accept as a sound
proposition of law that a high court, in exercise of its inherent power, may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35775
3 CRR-5657-2024
grant exemption from surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent
findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving effect to orders passed
under the Code and/or to prevent abuse of the process of a court."
4. In the case in hand, applicants have failed to surrender before the Court
for undergoing the jail sentence and have not moved any application before
this Court for exemption from surrender. In such circumstances, this revision
application is filed in violation of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court
Rules. Hence, same is not maintainable.
5. In view of the above, this revision being not maintainable, is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.29365/2024 an application under section for
suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned through Sessions
Judge, Chhindwara (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
