The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for a convicted person to surrender after their conviction for a revision petition to be tenable, as per Rule 48 of the M. P. High Court Rules, 2008, and the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in Bihari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and anr., (2000) 10 SCC 346.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri V. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent-State.

The petitioners have preferred the present criminal revision under section 397, 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment dated 17-3-2021 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 300245/2015 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-8-2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar in Criminal Case No. 749/2008, whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under 420 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under section 471 of Indian Penal Code with default stipulation.

2. I. A. No. 9397/2021, an application under section 397(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, has also been filed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this criminal revision is not maintainable as at the time of passing of judgment by the appellate Court, the petitioners were not present in the Court and till date the petitioners are absconding.

4. In reply, learned counsel for petitioners-Satyanarayan Sharma and Ramadhar Dantre has submitted that as the petitioners were involved in construction work of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya as well as due to COVID-19 pandemic, they could not appear before the Appellate Court at the time of passing of impugned judgment. Hence, prayed that the petitioners be permitted to surrender before this Court and, immediately thereafter they be released on bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley and ors., (2011) 3 SCC 351, State of Haryana vs. Rajmal and ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 372/2011], J. C. Shah vs. Ramaswami, AIR 1970 SC 962 and Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited vs. Rajvir Industries Limited and ors., (2008) 13 SCC 678, judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Gurjar and ors. vs. State of M. P., 2014(II) MPWN 118 as well as judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Rajendra Singh and ors. vs. State of M. P., 2014(II) MPWN 117 and Afsar Mohd. vs. State of M. P., 2013(III) MPWN 60.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is admitted fact that on the date of impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioners were not present before the Appellate Court and till date they are absconding.

7. Rule 48 of chapter X of the M. P. High Court Rules, 2008 (in short “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.”

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and anr., (2000) 10 SCC 346 has held as under : –

“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