1. Rejection of a revision application by the High Court on the ground that the accused had not surrendered. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 785
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Bihari Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 728 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/2/99
Important Points
A High Court cannot refuse to entertain a revision application solely because the accused has not surrendered, as the Criminal Procedure Code contains no such requirement, unless specific High Court rules mandate it.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Refusal to entertain revision application on ground of non-surrender of accused - No such requirement under the Code - In absence of specific High Court rules, rejection of revision application solely on ground of non-surrender is not justified. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A revision application was rejected by the High Court on the sole ground that the accused had not surrendered.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not justified in rejecting the application for revision solely on the ground that the accused has not surrendered, as there is no such requirement under the Criminal Procedure Code or the specific rules of the concerned High Court.
Issues: Whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, can refuse to hear or entertain a matter on the ground that the accused has not surrendered.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no requirement for the accused to surrender for a revision application to be entertained, and unless the specific rules of the High Court provide otherwise, such a condition cannot be imposed to reject an application.
Result: Impugned order set aside and revision application directed to be taken up on merits.
Facts of the case:
A revision application was rejected by the High Court on the sole ground that the accused had not surrendered.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not justified in rejecting the application for revision solely on the ground that the accused has not surrendered, as there is no such requirement under the Criminal Procedure Code or the specific rules of the concerned High Court.
Issues: Whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, can refuse to hear or entertain a matter on the ground that the accused has not surrendered.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no requirement for the accused to surrender for a revision application to be entertained, and unless the specific rules of the High Court provide otherwise, such a condition cannot be imposed to reject an application.
Result: Impugned order set aside and revision application directed to be taken up on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, can refuse to hear a matter on the ground that the accused has not surrendered. (Para 2 )
3. The Criminal Procedure Code contains no requirement for surrender, and the Patna High Court Rules do not provide for such a condition for entertaining revisions. (Para 3 )
4. A revision application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-surrender in the absence of a specific rule in the High Court Rules. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned order set aside and High Court directed to hear the revision application on merits. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can a High Court refuse to entertain a revision application because the accused has not surrendered?
The Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate surrender for the entertainment of a revision. While some High Courts have such provisions in their respective rules, a revision cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-surrender if no such rule exists in the relevant High Court Rules. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE only question that requires consideration in the present case is whether the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction can refuse to hear or entertain the matter on the ground that the accused has not surrendered.
(3) UNDER the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, there is no such requirement though many High Courts in this country have made such provision in the respective rules of the High Court. But it is stated to us that there is no such rule in the Patna High Court Rules. In that view of the matter the High Court was not justified in rejecting the application for revision solely on the ground that the accused has not surrendered.
(4) WE, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that the revision application be taken up by the High Court on merits. We make it clear that our order does not disentitle the High Court to dismiss the revision on merits.
(5) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
