Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Tripathi vs Shri Tuman Prasad Kushwaha on 7 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37035
1 CRR-95-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 95 of 2025
ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI
Versus
SHRI TUMAN PRASAD KUSHWAHA
Appearance:
Shri S. P. Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
Applicant has not complied with the order dated 17.2.2025. He failed
to surrender before trial Court.
2. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
assailing the appeal judgement dated 05.12.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.23/2022 (Anil Kumar Tripathi Vs. Tuman Prasad Kushwaha ) by IVth
Additional Session Judge, District Satna (MP) whereby Appellate Court
has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Satna in SC NIA 449/2018 ( Tuman Prasad Kushwaha Vs. Anil
Kumar Tripathi) by which applicant was convicted for commission of offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to
undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
However, the learned Appellate Court has modified/reduced the applicant's
conviction for the said offence and directed the applicant to undergo SI for
three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with default
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37035
2 CRR-95-2025
stipulations. Hence, this criminal revision.
3 . 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:
"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."
4 . In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not filed I.A.
No.3776/2025, an application for exemption from surrender. As the applicant
failed to comply with the order dated 17.2.2025, I.A. No.3776/2025 is
dismissed.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37035
3 CRR-95-2025
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 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."
6 . In the case in hand, applicant has failed to surrender before the Court
for undergoing the jail sentence. 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.
7 . Consequently, in view of the above, this revision being not
maintainable is dismissed.
8 . A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned through Sessions
Judge, Satna (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
