Non-maintainability of revision petitions due to absconding status of the accused post-conviction established as a principle.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 30 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3370 of 2025 SANJAY KUMAR JAIN Versus SURESH KAMLE Appearance:

Shri Prajas Bhatti - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Nitesh Kumar Patel - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant assailing the appeal judgment dated 25.08.2014, passed in CRA No.66/2014 (Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs.

th Suresh Kamle) by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) by which appeal preferred by the applicant (herein) was dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.12090/2011 (Suresh Kamle Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain) by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur (M.P.) has been affirmed. By the said judgment, applicant (herein) was convicted for commission of offence Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has been sentenced to undergo SI for one year and has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,34,500/- under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C . & also to pay Rs.5,000/- under Section 359 of Cr.P.C . to the complainant with default stipulations. Hence, this criminal revision.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR

2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that this revision petition has been preferred almost after ten years, eleven months and five days. Applicant/accused is absconding and despite his conviction from two Courts, he has not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on him. Neither the application for condonation of delay in presentation of the revision nor any application for exemption from surrendering before the Trial Court have been filed by the applicant alongwith the petition.

3. 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."

4. In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not surrendered. 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 CRR 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR 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:-

"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."

5. As appli