Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhruv Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35020
1 CRR-5898-2024
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. 5898 of 2024
DHRUV KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Choubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
In this case, the applicant has not surrendered 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 07.10.2024, passed in CRA
No.93/2022 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (M.P.) whereby,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2022 passed in
RCT No.2301/2022 (The State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Kumar and another) by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni (M.P.) convicting the applicant for
commission of offence under Sections 9 r/w Section 51, 39 r/w Section 51,
48A r/w Section 51 and 49B r/w Section 51(1-A) of the Wildlife Protection
Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-
under each offence with default stipulation, has been affirmed.
On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35020
2 CRR-5898-2024
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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35020
3 CRR-5898-2024
of giving effect to orders passed under the Code and/or
to prevent abuse of the process of a court."
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, Katni (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
