Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Tripathi vs Ajay Pratap Singh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34996
1 CRR-5012-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5012 of 2024
ANIL TRIPATHI
Versus
AJAY PRATAP SINGH
Appearance:
None for the applicant.
ORDER
In this case, despite this Court's direction dated 2.12.2024 applicant
has failed to surrender before the trial Court. As per Rule 48 Chapter X of
the M.P. High Court Rules, this revision is not maintainable.
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has
been filed assailing the appeal judgment dated 06.09.2024, passed in CRA
No.97/2024 by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.) whereby,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed in SC
NIA No.192/2018 (Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. Anil Tripathi) by JMFC, District
Satna (M.P.) convicting the applicant for commission of offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to
undergo RI for 06 months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, has
been affirmed.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34996
2 CRR-5012-2024
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."
In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not surrendered.
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 CRLR No.4402/2022 in the case 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 judgment 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34996
3 CRR-5012-2024
As applicant has not surrendered this revision being filed in violation
of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules is not maintainable.
Consequently, this revision, being not maintainable, is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent down to the trial Court concerned through
Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.). Trial Court is directed to take all necessary
steps to commit the accused to jail to serve out the sentence.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
DV
