HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Balbir Singh .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Najakat Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025 (Balbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another).

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that a complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2818 of 2019 (Balbinder Singh Vs. Balbir Singh), under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. Learned trial court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Rampur had decided the said complaint No. 2818 of 2019 under Section 138 of NI Act after complete of trial on 9.9.2025, whereby the revisionist Balbir Singh has been convicted and sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 4 lacs. In non payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgement dated 9.9.2025, the revisionist/Balbir Singh filed a Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025 (Balbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur. The said appeal has been dismissed due to non compliance of Section 148 of NI Act on 10.12.2025. Thereafter, the present criminal revision has been filed and the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the criminal appellate court has been challenged before this Court in this revision.

6. Learned AGA has submitted and further the revisionist has also admitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, the revisionist has not surrendered before the learned trial court and filed the present criminal revision, whereas in view of provision of Chapter XVIII Rule (4) of Allahabad High Court, 1952, surrender is required prior to filing of the criminal revision.

7. Rule (4) of Chapter XVIII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads as under:

"(4) In a case in which a sentence of imprisonment has been awarded the petition of appeal or the application for revision shall also contain a certificate signed by the advocate for the appellant or the applicant as the case may be, stating that the accused was not on bail or that, if he was on bail, he has surrendered to it. In a case in which bail has been granted by the Court appealed from order sub-section (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the fact shall be stated in the petition of the appeal indicating the period of which such bail has been granted."

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and others; 2023 INSC 822 and placed reliance on paragraph no. 4 of the said judgement which reads as under:

"4. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and others V. Virender Gandhi,; 2019 (11) SCC 341, the High Court proceeded on the footing that, as this Court has interpreted the word "may" appearing in Section 148 as "shall", the relief of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C can be granted only by directing the accused to deposit minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount."

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment that "in these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 9.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the cont