Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bherusingh vs Karulal on 10 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
1 CRR 1718/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1718 of 2026
BHERUSINGH
Versus
KARULAL
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Singh Rathore - Advocate for the
petitioner
Shri Kushagra Jain - Advocate for the
respondent/complainant.
Reserved on :- 06.07.2026
Post on :-10.07.2026
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by
the revisionist under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
2 CRR 1718/2026
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 438 read
with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). This
revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 02.04.2026
passed in MJCR No. 148/2026 by the learned IInd Additional
Session Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam. By way of the impugned
order, the learned Session Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed
by the petitioner strictly on the ground of a 12-day limitation delay,
thereby refusing to condone the delay and declining to hear the
appeal on its merits. Consequently, the original judgment and order
dated 30.01.2026 passed in SCNIA/153/2022 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Jaora, District Ratlam, convicting the petitioner under
the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and sentencing him to
Rigorous Imprisonment along with a compensation deposit of Rs.
1,40,000/- with 6% interest, was upheld.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the
present revision is that the respondent filed a complaint under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
3 CRR 1718/2026
Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the trial Court regarding the
dishonor of a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- due to
“insufficient funds”.
After the conclusion of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate,
Jaora, convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.01.2026,
sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment and directing
the deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation along with 6%
interest within three months. Aggrieved by the conviction, the
petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Session
Judge, Jaora. However, the said appeal was filed with a delay of 12
days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was
moved alongside the appeal, citing the petitioner’s rural
background, ignorance of the limitation period, and intervening
Court holidays as reasons for the delay. The learned Session Court,
vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, dismissed the Section 5
application at the threshold without hearing the appeal on its merits.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
4 CRR 1718/2026
3. The revisionist contends that the impugned order is
contrary to settled principles governing the condonation of delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Learned Sessions Court
has erred in law in adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic
approach while rejecting the application for condonation of delay of
merely 12 days, disregarding the settled principle that the
expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to
advance substantial justice.
4. The revisionist further submitted that refusal to
condone short delay defeats the right to appeal and causes grave
miscarriage of justice. The dismissal of the appeal by the learned
Court below, at the threshold without adjudication on merits has
resulted in denial of the statutory right of appeal, which is a
valuable right available to the accused.
5. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Court
failed to appreciate that the delay was bonafide and sufficiently
explained. The petitioner had clearly explained that he belongs to a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
5 CRR 1718/2026
rural background, was unaware of the limitation period, and was
also prevented due to intervening Court holidays. These reasons
constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
6. The revisionist argues that the learned Court below
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The learned Sessions
Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner by
not properly appreciating the reasons given in the application under
Section 5 and by rejecting it mechanically without recording cogent
reasons. In quasi-criminal matters like N.I. Act, a liberal approach
is required to ensure a fair trial and justice, and Courts are required
to lean in favor of adjudication on merits.
7. It is further submitted that the impugned order results
in failure of justice and abuse of process of law. By dismissing the
appeal on a mere delay of 12 days, the Learned Sessions Court has
effectively upheld the conviction without appellate scrutiny, thereby
causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The revisionist maintains
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
6 CRR 1718/2026
that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence
u/s 138 of the NI Act. He has been falsely implicated by the
respondent based on assumptions and surmises; however, the trial
court below has erred in not considering this material fact, and
further, the session court completely erred in rejecting the
application of the petitioner u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
8. The revisionist notes that the order is non-speaking and
passed without proper application of mind. The impugned order
does not reflect due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the
application and lacks proper reasoning, making it unsustainable in
law. Even otherwise, the delay of 12 days is minimal and ought to
have been condoned in the interest of justice. The Apex Court in a
series of judgments has consistently held that short delays deserve
liberal consideration, particularly when no prejudice is caused to the
opposite party.
9. It is urged that both the trial Court below failed to
consider the fact that there are material contradictions, omissions,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
7 CRR 1718/2026
and embellishments in the statement of the witnesses, and the trial
was a clear case of acquittal. Thus, the said judgment deserves to be
challenged in appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned
judge of the trial court below is without any justified reasons and
without any application of judicial mind, grossly erring in not
considering the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
10. The revisionist further stresses that the Learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate that the existence of a legally enforceable
debt was not proved. The essential ingredient of Section 138 is that
the cheque must have been issued in discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or liability. The complainant failed to produce
cogent and reliable evidence to establish the existence of such debt;
thus, the judgment passed by the trial court is required to be
challenged in appeal.
11. Finally, it is argued that the Learned Trial Court
wrongly shifted the burden entirely on the accused, failing to
appreciate that once a probable defense is raised, the complainant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
8 CRR 1718/2026
must independently prove the transaction. The conviction based
solely on presumption without proper proof is unsustainable, and
the findings of the Trial Court are based on conjectures and
surmises. The conviction is not based on legally admissible
evidence but on assumptions, thereby rendering the judgment
perverse and liable to be set aside after condonation of delay.
12. Alongside the main grounds, the petitioner has moved
IA No. 5618/2026 seeking exemption from surrender under Rule 48
of the M.P. High Court Rules read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 02.04.2026
suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error, providing an
exceptional circumstance.
13. It is contended that the Supreme Court in Vivek Rai
and another Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2015) 12 SCC
86 settled the law that though surrender is generally required, the
Hon’ble High Court retains inherent power to grant exemption in
exceptional situations. This Hon’ble High Court in numbers of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
9 CRR 1718/2026
judgments, including Sanjay Nagayach Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh in CRR.No. 729/2024 and Devnarayan and Others Vs
Prateek Goyanka in CRR No. 1912 of 2024, has held that
exemption can be granted if prima facie illegality and impropriety
are pointed out.
14. The petitioner notes that he is the only person in the
family taking care of his wife and kids, is a law-abiding person and
permanent resident of Gram Kalukheda, Dist. Ratlam, with no
likelihood of absconding, and is ready to follow all conditions and
furnish adequate surety.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
15. The counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the present revision petition as well as the accompanying
application for exemption from surrender.
16. The counsel for the respondent contends that the
impugned order passed by the learned Session Court is legally
sound and that the petitioner failed to establish any bona fide or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
10 CRR 1718/2026
sufficient cause for each day of the delay in filing the statutory
appeal. It is submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner
regarding his rural background and court holidays are merely
formal and unconvincing.
17. In direct opposition to IA No. 5618/2026 seeking
exemption from surrender, the respondent has specifically relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and
others vs State of MP 2012(3) MPLJ 534, arguing that a criminal
revision petition against a conviction is maintainable only if it
contains a strict declaration to the effect that the convicted person is
in custody or has surrendered after conviction, except where the
sentence has been suspended by the court below.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
18. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of
Criminal Procedure is strictly supervisory and corrective in nature.
The Revisional Court does not function as a regular Court of
Appeal and ordinarily avoids a full-fledged re-appreciation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
11 CRR 1718/2026
evidence unless required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of
justice.
19. It is pertinent to note that the learned session Court has
dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist only upon the ground
of limitation of 12 days delay and did not touch the merit of the
case. The impugned order of the learned session court reads as
under:-
“हस्तगत आवेदन-ऩत्र ,उसके उत्तय एवं उबमऩऺ के तको के आरोक भें प्रकयण
ऩत्रावरी एवं ववद्वान ववचायण न्मामारम द्वाया घ शोवषत ननणणम ददनांक
30.01.2026 की सत्मावऩत प्रनत का अवरोकन दकमा गमा। अवरोकन से दनशणत
है दक, ववद्वान ववचायण न्मामारम के द्वाया ददनांक 30.01.2026 को ननणणम घोवषत
दकमा गमा है , जिसकी अऩीर ददनांक 28.02.2026 तक होनी थी , दकंतु मह अऩीर
12 ददवस के ववरंफ से ददनांक 12.03.2026 को प्रस्तुत की गमी है ।
अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त के ववद्वान अनधवक्ता द्वाया अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें ववरंफ का कायण
अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त के ग्राभीण एवं अनऩढ़ होकय कृ वष कामण एवं भिदयू ी का
कामण कयने तथा वतणभान भें होरी व अन्म त्मौहायों के कायण उसको न्मामारम
की सुनवाई एवं अऩीर प्रस्तुत कयने की सभमावनध का ऻान नहीं होना फतामा
गमा है । उक्त के संफंध भें मह उल्रेख दकमा िाना सभीचीन होगा दक. होरी का
त्मौहाय भाचण भाह भें था तथा अऩीर प्रस्तुनत की सभमावनध उसके ऩूवण ददनांक
28.02.2026 तक ही यही है , इसनरमे होरी व अन्म त्मौहायों के कायण अऩीर भें
प्रस्तुनत भें ववरंफ होने का तथ्म सद्भाववक होना नहीं ऩामा िाता है । अऩीराथी/
अनबमुक्त की ओय से अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें ववरंफ का एक अन्म कायण उसके
ग्राभीण एवं अनऩढ़ होकय कृ वष कामण एवं भिदयू ी का कामण कयना बी फतामा
गमा है ,उक्त के संफंध भें मह बी उल्रेख दकमा िाना सभीचीन होगा दक , स्वमंSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1854712 CRR 1718/2026
अऩीराथी/ अनबमुक्त के ववद्वान अनधवक्ता के तकण के , अनुसाय ववचायण न्मामारम
द्वाया घोवषत ननणणम एवं दण्डादे श ददनांक 30.01.2026 को ही अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त
की ओय से ववदहत सभमावनध भें अऩीरीम न्मामारम से दण्डादे श ऩय स्थगन
प्राप्त दकमे िाने के संफंध भें आवेदन-ऩत्र प्रस्तुत दकमा गमा है , जिससे मह बी
स्ऩष्ट है दक ,अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त को ननणणम ददनांक को ही ववचायण न्मामारम
द्वाया उसे दोषनसद्ध ठहयामा िाकय दण्डाददष्ट दकमे िाने ऩय ववदहत सभमावनध भें
अऩीर प्रस्तुत कय अऩीरीम न्मामारम से स्थगन प्राप्त कयने की िानकायी यही
है , दकंतु दपय बी उसके द्वाया ऐसा नहीं दकमा िाना उसके द्वाया ववचायण
न्मामारम के सभऺ प्रस्तुत आवेदन-ऩत्र भें वजणणत तथ्मों की उऩेऺा को दशाणता
है । आवेदन-ऩत्र भें मह बी वजणणत दकमा गमा है दक अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त के द्वाया
िफ अऩने अनबबाषक से संऩकण दकमा गमा ,तो उसे अऩीर प्रस्तुत कयने के नरए
कहा गमा। उक्त के संफंध भें मह बी उल्रेखनीम है दक ,अऩीराथी/ अनबमुक्त की
ओय से प्रकयण की ऩैयवी हे तु िो अनधवक्ता ववचायण न्मामारम सभऺ ननमुक्त यहे
हैं , वही अनधवक्ता इस न्मामारम भें बी हैं , जिससे इस फात की बी उऩधायणा की
िा सकती है दक ववचायण न्मामारम द्वाया अऩीराथी/ अनबमुक्त को दण्डाददष्ट
दकमे िाने ऩय अऩीरीम न्मामारम से स्थगन आदे श प्राप्त कयने हे तु ववदहत
अवसय प्राप्त कयने ऩय उनके द्वाया उक्त के सफंध भें अऩीराथी / अनबमुक्त को
दहदामत अवश्म दी गमी होगी। इस प्रकाय अऩीराथी / अनबमुक्त की ओय से
आवेदन-ऩत्र प्रस्तुत आवेदन-ऩत्र भें वजणणत ववरंफ के आधाय सद्भाववक होना नहीं
ऩामे िाते है । इस प्रकाय अऩीराथी/ अनबमुक्त ने स्वमं को ववचायण न्मामारम
द्वाया दोषनसद्ध ठहयामा िाकय दण्डाददष्ट दकमे िाने के उऩयांत बी अऩीर प्रस्तुनत
भें वफना दकसी सद्भाववक कायण के अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें ववरंफ कारयत दकमा गमा
है . िो कतई ऺभा दकमे िाने मोग्म नहीं है । आवेदन-ऩत्र भें मह बी स्ऩष्ट नहीं
दकमा गमा है दक , अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें दकतने ददन का ववरंफ हुआ है , िफदक इस
प्रकाय के आवेदन-ऩत्र के सभथणन भें प्रत्मेक ददवस के ववरंफ का कायण दनशणत
दकमा िाना आवश्मक है , दकंतु हस्तगत प्रकयण भें अत्मंत औऩचारयक रूऩ से
आवेदन-ऩत्र प्रस्तुत दकमा गमा है तथा अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें हुमे ववरंफ के कायण
बी सद्भाववक होना नहीं ऩामे गमे है । अत् उऩयोक्तं तथ्मों को सभग्रता से दृवष्टगत ्
यखते हुमे अऩीर प्रस्तुनत भें हुआ ववरंफ ऺभा दकमे िाने मोग्म नहीं है औय उक्त
ववरफ के आधाय ऩय अऩीर प्रस्तुत दकमे िाने की अनुभनत बी प्रदान नहीं की
िा सकती है । अत् उऩयोक्त वववेचन के आधाय ऩय अऩीराथी/अनबमुक्त की ओयSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1854713 CRR 1718/2026
से प्रस्तुत आवेदन-ऩत्र अंतगणत धाया 05 ऩरयसीभा अनधननमभ ननयस्त दकमा
िाता है ।
प्रकयण का ऩरयणाभ सी.आई.एस. भें दिण दकमा िाकय ववदहत सभमावनध भें
अनबरेखागाय प्रेवषत दकमा िामे।”
20. Coming to the application seeking exemption from
surrender of the petitioner under rule 48 of M.P. high court rules
r/w section 482 CRPC the Rule 48 of MP high court reads as :-
“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.”
21. The case law relied by the state Deepak Sahu vs. State
of M. P. 2012(3) M.P.L.J 534 read as under:-
“5. In Bihari Prasad (supra) the Apex Court held in para 3 as under :– “3.
Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no such
requirement though many High Courts in this country have made such provision
in the respective rules of the High Court. But it is stated to us that there is no
such rule in the Patna High Court Rules. In that view of the matter the High
Court was not justified in rejecting the application for revision solely on the
ground that the accused has not surrendered.” (emphasis supplied).
A bare perusal of this paragraph shows that the Apex Court opined that there is
no requirement in the Criminal Procedure Code which makes it necessary for the
accused to surrender after the conviction. However, the Apex Court opined that
certain High Courts have made such provisions in their rules. In Kishore Virvani
(supra) this Court held that undoubtedly there is no rule which compels the
petitioner to surrender before filing the revision in the High Court. However, a
microscopic reading of this judgment shows that the relevant provision of High
Court Rule was not specifically brought to the notice of this Court. Rule 48
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1854714 CRR 1718/2026
convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the
conviction.” (emphasis supplied).
7. The basic question is whether as per Rule 48 aforesaid,
it is obligatory for the person to surrender on his conviction before
filing of the revision.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the language
employed in Rule 48 makes it crystal clear that a declaration is
mandatory for the accused to the effect that he is in custody or has
surrendered after the conviction. The only exception provided in
the rule is where the sentence has been suspended by the Court
below. In other words, except in cases where a sentence was
suspended by the Court below itself, in all other cases there has to
be a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody
or has surrendered after the conviction. Thus, the intention of rule
makers is unambiguous and clear regarding giving of such
declaration. Needless to mention that an accused can give such
declaration only if he is in custody or surrendered after the
conviction. Thus, undoubtedly, the intention of rule is that one has
to surrender after conviction or should be in custody except in
those cases where sentence has been suspended by the Court. The
word “shall” is used to make it mandatory. This is salutary
principle of statutory interpretation that when the words of a statute
are clear, plain and unambiguous, the Courts are bound to give
effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. Nelson Motis
vs. Union of India, AIR 19920 SC 1981.
“9. The Apex Court also held that “if the words of the statute are in
themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be
necessary than to expound those words in their natural and
ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases best
declare the intent of the lawgiver.” (page 50 Principles of Statutory
Interpretation) (12th Edition 2010 by Justice G. P. Singh). The
Apex Court also opined that when language is plain and
unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of
construction of a statute arises, the Act speaks for itself. In the light
of this legal position, I have no hesitation to hold that Rule 48
makes it mandatory for the accused to give declaration about his
surrender after the conviction or about the fact regarding his
remaining in custody.
10. Since Rule 48, in specific, was not brought to the
notice of this Court in Kishore (supra), the said judgment is clearly
distinguishable on this aspect. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it
is held that a revision petition against conviction is tenable only
when it contains a declaration to the effect that the convicted
person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except
in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court
below.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
15 CRR 1718/2026
11. The matter be posted before the regular bench on
Thursday (9-2-2012) for further consideration.”
22. Moreover the case law relied by the petitioner is that
Vivek Rai v. High Court of Jharkhand, (2015) 12 SCC 86 : (2016) 1
SCC (Cri) 56 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 95 at page 88 which reads
as:-
“2. The Rule in question is as follows:
“159. In the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of conviction and sentence 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 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
be posted for admission unless the petitioner has surrendered to custody in the
court concerned.”
3. The case of the petitioners is that they have been convicted and sentenced
under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC“) and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the said conviction and sentence, their
appeal has been dismissed and revision petition was filed before the High Court
but the same was not registered on account of the impugned Rule 159 as they
failed to surrender to custody. It is submitted that this Rule is in conflict with the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with the statutory revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court and even in a fit case, the High Court cannot
consider the revision petition and grant bail unless a convicted person covered
by the Rules surrenders to custody. The Rule being subordinate legislation could
not militate against the substantive statutory provision. Since the Division Bench
of the High Court has upheld [Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastava v. High Court of
Jharkhand, 2004 SCC OnLine Jhar 342 : 2004 Cri LJ 4392] the validity of the
Rule and the special leave petition was dismissed [Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastava
v. State of Jharkhand, SLP (Cri) No. 4890 of 2004, order dated 29-10-2004
(SC), wherein it was directed:”Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
special leave petition is dismissed.”] by this Court against the said judgment, the
petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court under Article 32
as their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 are affected.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Registrar General of the High
Court of Jharkhand opposing the prayer for declaring the Rule to be ultra vires.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court in Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastava v. High Court of Jharkhand [Mahadeo
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
16 CRR 1718/2026
Prasad Shrivastava v. High Court of Jharkhand, 2004 SCC OnLine Jhar 342 :
2004 Cri LJ 4392] laying down that the Rule could not be held to be arbitrary,
discriminatory or illegal. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4890 of 2004 filed
against the said judgment was dismissed [Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastava v. State
of Jharkhand, SLP (Cri) No. 4890 of 2004, order dated 29-10-2004 (SC),
wherein it was directed:”Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
special leave petition is dismissed.”] by this Court. It has also been stated that
there is an identical provision in Order 21 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 and thus such a provision cannot be held to be arbitrary nor such a
provision, in any manner, be held to be inconsistent with Section 389 read with
Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. The High Court is competent to frame rules to
regulate its procedure. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court
in Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI [Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan
v. CBI, (2006) 5 SCC 752 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 83] laying down that a convicted
person is required to surrender under Rule 6 of Order 21 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966, unless the Court directs otherwise.
5. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions.
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 ensure 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.”
23. This Court, after conducting a precise, detailed analysis
of the procedural history and the applicable legal precedents, notes
that the sub-ordinate appellate court failed to evaluate the primary
statutory appeal on its legal or factual merits. The entire proceeding
before the learned IInd Additional Session Judge was brought to an
premature close strictly based on a technical limitation bar.
24. Under standard conditions, Rule 48 of the M.P. High
Court Rules requires a formal declaration regarding custody or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
17 CRR 1718/2026
surrender to maintain a revision petition, a principle supported by
this Court’s ruling in Deepak Sahu (supra). The core legislative
objective of such a rule as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Vivek Rai (supra) is to prevent convicted persons from evading
the law after their conviction has been substantively scrutinized and
sustained by two consecutive sub-ordinate Courts.
25. In the present case, however, as no case has been heard
on merit by the session court and case was dismissed only upon the
bar of limitation, a different operational context arises. The
petitioner has been entirely deprived of his initial, critical statutory
right of first appeal due to a marginal procedural delay of only 12
days. The substantive merits of his trial conviction have never been
subjected to appellate review.
26. Consequently, the rule regarding surrender i.e. Rule 48
will not apply in the present matter. Enforcing a strict surrender
requirement at this stage when the first appellate court rejected the
petition mechanically on a brief 12-day limitation window would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
18 CRR 1718/2026
result in an excessive procedural hardship not intended by the
framework of subordinate Court rules.
27. Upon reviewing the reasoning in the impugned order, it
is evident that the learned Session Court adopted a hyper-technical,
rigid, and pedantic approach. A short delay of 12 days is minimal
and deserves a liberal, justice-oriented construction to advance
substantial justice rather than defeating a key statutory right at the
threshold. The failure of the lower appellate court to exercise its
jurisdiction in a judicious manner constitutes a patent material
irregularity and legal impropriety that necessitates revisional
intervention.
28. In light of the comprehensive analysis and legal
findings detailed above, the present Criminal Revision Petition is
hereby allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside. The order
dated 02.04.2026 passed in MJCR No. 148/2026 by the learned IInd
Additional Session Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam, is quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18547
19 CRR 1718/2026
Matter is remanded back. The Session Court is directed to decide
the appeal on merits condoning the delay of 12 days.
29. The petitioner/revisionist is directed to approach the
Session Court within 30 days. Concurrently, IA No. 5618/2026
seeking exemption from surrender stands allowed till the
petitioner/revisionist approaches the Session Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Rashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-07-2026
18:29:11
