Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA,J.
Praveen Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6045 of 2024
Decided on : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Padmaker Pandey
For the Respondent: G.A.

A convicted individual must surrender before the court to maintain a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as per the Allahabad High Court Rules.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Revision against conviction - The revisionist challenged the appellate court's order dismissing his appeal due to absence and enhancing the fine from Rs.32,31,50,000/- to Rs.64,63,00,000/- - The revisionist failed to comply with mandatory surrender requirements under Rule 3(4) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which necessitates a certificate of surrender when filing a revision after conviction - The High Court held that the revision cannot be entertained without this compliance. (Paras 1, 3, 26, 34, 37)

(B) Maintainability of Revision - The court emphasized that a convicted person must surrender before the court for a revision to be maintainable, as per Rule 3(4) - The discretion lies with the court to exempt this requirement only in exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated in this case. (Paras 9, 24, 36)

(C) Final Decision - The revision was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements, leaving the option open for the revisionist to comply and refile. (Paras 37)

JUDGMENT :

Manjive Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri Prakash Naik, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tapan Thattey and Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsels appearing for the revisionist, Sri Brajendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla and Sri R.K. Singh Chandel, learned counsels appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C . read with Section 401 Cr.P.C . challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 21.8.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist i.e. Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2022 had been dismissed due to absence of the appellant before the appellate court and Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 had been allowed and the fine imposed by the trial court vide order dated 26.8.2022 had been enhanced from Rs.32,31,50,000/- to Rs.64,63,00,000/-.

Brief facts of the case

3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case, alleging therein that the revisionist had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act of 1881’). The revisionist appeared before the trial court and was enlarged on bail. Later on, the Compliant Case No.6352 of 2016 had been decided vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2022 whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and had been sentenced for simple imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs.32,31,50,000/-. The revisionist filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the trial court dated 26.8.2022 and the said appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2022. The Opposite Party No.2 also challenged the order dated 26.8.2022 passed by the trial court by filing Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 wherein, the prayer was made for enhancement of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court.

4. The aforesaid both the criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 were connected and heard together by the appellate court.

5. The present revisionist was granted interim bail by the trial court, till he files the appeal and therefore, he after filing of the appeal, filed an application before the appellate court for suspension of the execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court and on that application, the appellate court passed order on 20.9.2022 directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount of fine i.e. Rs.16,15,50,000/- and further provided that the plea of suspension of sentence shall be considered after deposit of the said 50% of the amount of fine. The present revisionist did not comply with the aforesaid order dated 20.9.2022 and challenged the same by filing a petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C .

6. Ultimately, the appellate court had decided both the aforesaid criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 by a common judgment and order dated 21.8.2024.

7. The appellate court in its judgment and order dated 21.8.2024 had recorded a finding that the appellant i.e. the present revisionist has been continuously absent before the appellate court therefore, the appeal had been dismissed in default. The learned appellate court vide order dated 21.8.2024 had allowed Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 whereby, the fine imposed against the present revisionist vide order dated 26.8.2022 passed by the trial court, had been enhanced from Rs.32,31,50,000/- to Rs.64,63,00,000/-

Submissions on behalf of Opposite Party No.2

8. Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, at the very outset, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this revision on the ground that the revisionist has not complied with the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (herein