IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRR No. 3879 of 2025 (GUDDA RAIKWAR Vs ASHOK JAIN AND OTHERS )

Dated : 09-12-2025 Shri Shekhar Sharma – learned Senior Advocate along with Shri S.K. Pathak – learned advocate for the applicant.

Shri Somnath Kori – learned counsel for the respondent.

I.A. 22874/25 is an application for exemption from surrender. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard.

3. In short, the accused/ applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a case under Negotiable Instrument Act by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 15-01-2025 in the case of Ashok Jain vs. Gudda Raikwar SC NIA 1815/2017 and has been punished with imprisonment and compensation cost as per para 24 and 26 of the judgment with default stipulation as per para 27.

4. Appeal was filed by the appellant bearing Criminal Appeal No. 55/2025.

The Learned Additional Session Judge vide judgement dated 18-07-2025 dismissed the appeal of the appellant accused Gudda Raikawar, against which a revision has been filed.

5. In the instant I.A. attention is invited to paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in CRR 729/24 (Sanjay Nagayach Vs State of M.P) decided on 20-2-24 which is as below :-

“4. After careful scrutiny of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules and Orders, it is clear that there is no requirement of surrendering before Court and to be confined or in jail for preferring criminal revision before High Court. If applicant is not in confinement, then also criminal revision is maintainable before the High Court. If counsel for applicant is able to point out any impropriety or illegality in the judgment passed by the Court below then High Court may exercise its jurisdiction and powers of revision to call for the records and examine the same. While passing orders for summoning the records for examination, High Court may direct execution of sentence or order to be suspended. Once order of suspension of execution of sentence or order to suspend judgment of appellate Court is passed then if accused/applicant is in jail, he is to be released on bail. If accused is not in jail then Court may order him to furnish bail bonds for his appearance before the High Court when required.

5. Applicant has filed an application i.e. I.A. No. 4216/2024 for exemption to surrender. Prima facie, illegality and impropriety in order is pointed out before the Court. In view of same, record from the trial Court is summoned. As held above, there is no requirement to surrender or to remain in jail for filing revision, therefore, I.A. No.4216/2024 is dismissed.

6. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before Registry of this Court on 26.04.2024 and on further dates as may be fixed by the Office till final disposal of the case.”

6. Considered the arguments of counsel for both the parties.

At the time of arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Shekhar Sharma along with Shri S.K. Pathak submitted that in the impugned judgement of Sanjay Nagayach (Supra) judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy, 2006 SCC Online Mad 1231 , relevant paragraphs are quoted and relied which are as under:-

“The words "direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended" have to be read dis-conjuctively from the words and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his bond pending the examination of the record. Suspension of the execution of any sentence or order postulates that the petitioner is not in confinement. This Section gives jurisdiction to the revisional Court to suspend sentence even though the petitioner is not in confinement. The question of releasing Him on bail arises only when he is in confinement. Therefore, when the accused in confinement makes an application for suspension of