A revision application is not maintainable if the accused has not surrendered to serve their sentence following conviction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 28 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2419 of 2025 KAVITA ROHDA Versus AJAY BAGHWANI Appearance:

Shri Vishal K. Namdeo - Advocate for the applicant.

ORDER This revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS , 2023 has been filed assailing the appeal judgement dated 16.04.2025, passed in Cr.A.No.01/2025 (Kavita Rohda Vs. Ajay Baghwani by Second ASJ, Damoh, District Damoh, whereby, judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed in SCNIA No.11/2024 (Ajay Baghwani Vs. Kavita Rohda) convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing her to suffer RI for six months and payment of compensation of Rs.1,20,882/- to the complainant with default stipulation, has been affirmed.

2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that applicant/accused is absconding and despite her conviction from two Courts she has not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on her. Rule 48 Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 reads as under:

"48. A memorandum of appeal or revision petition Signature Not Verified 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. 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 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 judgement 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:

"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. In the case in hand, applicant has failed to surrender before the Court for undergoing the jail sentence. In such circumstances, this revision Signature Not Verified application is filed in violation of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules. Hence, same is not maintainable.

5. Consequently, in view of the above, this revision being not maintainable is dismissed.