IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 19 OF DECEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2231 of 2024 BABU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

None for the applicant.

Shri Vinay Sharma - Panel lawyer for respondent.

ORDER This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the appeal judgment dated 23.4.2024, passed in CRA No.345/2023 (Babu Vs. State of M.P.) by II Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur (M.P.) whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2023 passed in RCT No.423/2021 (State of M.P. Vs. Mukhtiyar and another) by JMFC, Burhanpur (M.P.) convicting the applicant for commission of offence under Section 6/9(2) of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation and under Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and sentencing him with fine of Rs.50/- , has been affirmed.

2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that applicant/accused is absconding and despite his conviction from two Courts, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR he has not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on him. Rule 48 Chapter X of M.P. High Court 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."

3. In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not surrendered before the trial Court in compliance of this Court orders dated 02.09.2024 and 19.09.2024. Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 30.07.2024, passed in {[Special Leave (Criminal) Diary No.(s).20900 of 2024)] (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, in CRLR No.4402/2022 in the case of Daulat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh} has held that a revision is not maintainable where accused has not surrendered despite his conviction to serve the sentence imposed on him and exemption cannot be allowed by High Court. Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment of Vivek Rai and others Vs. High Court of Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86 and upheld the order of this court and held as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR "15. We do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to accept as a sound proposition of law that a high court, in exercise of its inherent power, may grant exemption from surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving effect to orders passed under the Code and/or to prevent abuse of the process of a court."

4. As applicant has not surrendered this revision being filed in violation of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules is not maintainable.

5. Consequently, this revision, being not maintainable, is dismissed.

6. A copy of this order alongwith records of the Courts below be sent down to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Burhanpur (M.P.). Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to commit the accused to jail to serve out the sentence.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)

JUDGE mrs. mishra Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR