The High Court maintains that exemption from surrender in revision petitions against conviction requires demonstration of exceptional circumstances, aligning with procedural rules governing judicial practice.

Dated :09-07-2025 Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the applicant in Cr.R.No.2714/2024.

Shri Laxmi Narayan Sakle - Advocate for the applicant in Cr.R.No.5126/2019.

Shri Ashley Johnmathew - Advocate for the respondent in Cr.R.No.5126/2019.

Heard on I.A.Nos.17167/2025 & 16138/2025,which are applications for exemption from surrender before the authorities.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that maintainability of revision, it is not mandatory for the applicant to surrender before the Court as per Rule 48 Chapter X of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 and the Court can consider the exemption application, in case where it is necessary, in the interest of justice and grant exemption to the applicant from surrendering.

3. Learned counsel Shri Sankalp Kochar has submitted that as per the judgment of this in the case of Sanjay Nagayach Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cr.R. No.729 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024, this aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR has been considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, but the Court has not considered M.P. High Court Rules.

4. Further, he has relied on the judgment of High Court of Madras passed in the case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1231 wherein the Madras High Court in paragraphs Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 has discussed this aspects and held that it is well settled that in respect of revision against conviction and sentence for granting the relief of suspension of sentence, the accused need not to be surrendered and undergo confinement as contemplated under Section 397 (1) of CrPC as the said section makes itself clear that there is absolutely no ambiguity as reading the word "direct that execution of any sentence or order be suspended". But the learned counsel for the applicant has fairly admitted that in the case interpretation, the rules of the High Court were not considered and Rules were not in dispute. Relying upon the judgment of Vivek Rai and another Vs. High Court of Jharkhand reported in (2005) 12 SCC 86. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court had considered Rule 159 of High Court Jharkhand Rules, 2001 which is purported as under:-

''159. to the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of conviction and sentence a of imprisonment, the petitioner shall state whether the petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not surrendered the petition Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR shall be accompanied by an application seeking leave to surrender within a specified period. On sufficient cause being shown, the Bench may grant such time and on such conditions as it thinks and proper. No such revision shall he posted for admission unless the petitioner has surrendered to custody in the court concerned."

5. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the said case has also considered the rules in paragraph-6 of its judgment which is as under:-

''6. We do not find any merit in the challenge to the validity of the Rule. It is well-known practice that generally a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in the Court itself. The object of the Rule is to casure that a person who has been convicted by two courts obeys the law and does not abscond. The provision cannot thus be held to be arbitrary in any manner. The provision is to regulate the procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of CrPC relied upon by the petitioners.

and after discussing the various judgments and Rules of Apex Court in paragraphs-10 and 11 has held as under:-

'' 10. Only further submission put forward is that inherent power of the Court to direct listing of the case by exempting the requirement of surrender has been taken away. It is point