Compliance with procedural rules is mandatory, and inherent powers of the court do not allow exemptions without valid justification.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.4124/2025 (Nasrat Khan v. Nazir Bakhsh)

Dated : 29.08.2025 Applicant by Shri Vivek Shukla – Advocate.

................................................................................................................................................

Heard on I.A.No.20700/2025, which is an application for exemption from surrender by the applicant.

2. This criminal revision u/s 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . has been filed by the applicant against judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.5605/2023 arising out of judgment dated 08.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Rajnagar in Criminal Case No.SCNIA/03/2021, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and compensation of Rs.3,54,000/- with default stipulation. Notably, the Appellate Court has reduced the period of sentence from two years to six months, although remaining order has been kept intact.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have entered into compromise out of the Court. Therefore, the applicant may be exempted from surrender in execution of sentence. In other words, the applicant is seeking exemption from surrender as required under Rule 48 of Chapter-X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (in short “Rules, 2008”).

4. To reinforce his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Rai & Anr. v. High Court of Jharkhand Thr. Reg. Gen. & Ors. 2015(12) SCC 86. He also relied upon an order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in Cr.R. No.2667/2025 (Amarnath Sharma v. Virendra Singh) wherein the cases of Vivek Rai (supra) and an order 20.02.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Cr.R. No.729/2024 (Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) have been considered. He also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khushinder Singh v. Rajinder Kaur , rendered in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.25242/2024 on 18.11.2024.

5. At this juncture, it is imperative to quote Rule 48 of Rules, 2008, 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 430 of the Sanhita, 2023.

An application under section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023 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.”

6. Now, I feel it apposite to go-through the settled legal position. The Supreme Court in Daulat Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).20900/2024 while dealing with Rule 48 of Rules, 2008 and considering the case of Vivek Rai (supra), has categorically 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.”

7. Of-late, the Coordinate Benc