Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harish Pal vs Jitendra Singh Gaur on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 CRR-1957-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 1957 of 2025
(HARISH PAL Vs JITENDRA SINGH GAUR )
Dated : 02-05-2025
Shri Keshav Pathak - advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aashi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of
maintainability of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner remained
on bail during the trial and also during the appellate stage, and he never
misused the liberty so extended to him. The petitioner is a private job and
serving as driver, and if he is arrested, it will have an adverse impact upon
his service. The petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the compensation
amount. He has a strong case in his favour. Hence, the petitioner may be
exempted from surrendering before the trial court, and his application for
suspension of sentence may be considered accordingly.
In the case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswami, reported in 2006
SCC Online Mad 1231, it has been held that:-
"The words 'direct that the execution of any sentence or order be
suspended' have to be read dis-conjunctively from the words and if the
accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his bond pending
the examination of the record. Suspension of the execution of any sentence
or order postulates that the petitioner is not in confinement. This Section
gives jurisdiction to the revisional Court to suspend sentence even though
2 CRR-1957-2025
the petitioner is not in confinement. The question of releasing Him on bail
arises only when he is in confinement. Therefore, when the accused in
confinement makes an application for suspension of sentence on order, the
Court should not, only order suspension of the sentence or order but order
his release on bail also. Not so, when he is not in confinement. This Section
clearly recognizes the difference between a case where an accused is in
confinement and when not in confinement. Thus, it will not be proper for the
revisional Court to insist upon an accused to be remanded to confinement
before his sentence can be suspended, for, that will be acting against the dear
and express provisions contained in Section 397(1) of the Code, quoted
above, enabling the revisional Court to exercise the twin jurisdiction vested
in it in cases where the accused is in confinement and not in confinement.
The matter becomes clear when the other sections of the Code are also
considered....
8......the revisional Court need not insist upon the confinement of the
accused before ordering suspension of sentence or order passed against him.
If the accused is in confinement, the revisional Court will have to direct his
release on bail; if he is not in confinement, the revisional Court need only
suspend the execution of the sentence or order, either on the bond already
executed or as directed by the revisional Court. Since the relevant provisions
of the Code have clearly delineated the situation where the accusers presence
is necessary, and since Section 397 is silent about the custody or
confinement of the accused, the revisional Court need not insist upon
bringing the accused to confinement before exercising the powers Under
3 CRR-1957-2025
Section 397(1) of the Code."
6. In view of the abovesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as the decision rendered by his Lordship Justice Khalid (as he then was),
it is well settled that in respect of the revision against conviction and
sentence, for granting the relief of suspension of sentence, the accused need
not surrender and undergo confinement and filing revision without
surrendering and confinement is well within the power contemplated Under
Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. as Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. itself is very clear that
there Is absolutely no ambiguity as the reading of the words "direct that
execution of any sentence or order be suspended."
Further, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay
Nagayach Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRR No.729 of
2024, has held that:
"If the applicant is not in confinement, then also criminal revision is
maintainable before the High Court. If the counsel for the applicant is able to
point out any impropriety or illegality in the judgment passed by the Court
below, then the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction and powers of
revision to call for the records and examine the same. While passing orders
for summoning the records for examination, the High Court may direct
execution of sentence or order to be suspended. Once the order of
suspension of execution of sentence or order to suspend judgment of the
appellate Court is passed, then if the accused/applicant is in jail, he is to be
released on bail. If the accused is not in jail, then the Court may order him to
furnish bail bonds for his appearance before the High Court when required".
4 CRR-1957-2025
After careful scrutiny of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and also Rule 48
of Chapter X of the M.P. High Court Rules and Order, it is clear that there is
no mandatory requirement of surrendering before the court and to be
confined or in jail for preferring criminal revision before the High Court. If
the petitioner is not in confinement, then his criminal revision is maintainable
before this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered opinion that
there is no requirement of the petitioner/accused to surrender or to be
remained in jail for filing revision, therefore, the petitioner is exempted
from surrendering before the trial court.
Both parties have jointly filed I.A.Nos.9537 of 2025 and 9538 of 2025
under Sections 320(1) of Cr.P.C/359(2) of BNSS 2023 and 9538 of 2025
under Sections 320(2) of Cr.P.C/359(2) of BNSS 2023 respectively for
compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before Pr. Register of this court on
03.05.2025 to verify the factum of compromise.
Pr. Registrar is directed to submit verification report.
List in the next week.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
