Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35457
1 CRR-1629-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1629 of 2020
RAJKUMAR SAKET
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Kushwaha - Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
assailing the appeal judgement dated 27.12.2019, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.01/2019 (Rajkumar Saket Vs. the State of M.P. ) by IVth
Additional Session Judge, Headquarter Waidhan, District-Singrauli (MP)
whereby Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2018
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waidhan, Singrauli in
Criminal Case No.601013/2014 (State of MP Vs. Rajkumar Saket ) by
which applicant was convicted for commission of offence under Section
325/34 of IPC 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35457
2 CRR-1629-2020
offence and directed the applicant to undergo SI for three months and to
pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations. Hence, this criminal
revision.
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:
"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, applicant who is absconding has 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35457
3 CRR-1629-2020
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."
4. In the case in hand, applicant has failed to surrender before the
Court for undergoing the jail sentence and has 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. Consequently, in view of the above, this revision being not
maintainable is dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned through
Sessions Judge, Singrauli (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
