9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 48 of High Court of M.P. Rules, 2008 regarding the requirement for the accused to surrender before filing a criminal revision despite conviction and sentence not being suspended.
Summary: The judgment by Mr. Sujoy Paul, J. of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with the question of whether a criminal revision is tenable when the convicted person has not surrendered or is not in custody. The Appellant's counsel argued that there is no compulsion under the Cr.P.C. for surrender before filing a revision, citing relevant case laws. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that Rule 48 of the High Court Rules makes surrender obligatory for filing a revision. In analyzing the arguments, the Court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Bihari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another, which highlighted that while some High Courts have surrender requirements in their rules, there is no such mandate under the Cr.P.C. The Court also mentioned a local judgment where the specific provision of Rule 48 was not considered. The Court concluded that Rule 48 indeed makes it mandatory for the accused to declare their custody status or surrender after conviction when filing a revision, except when the sentence has been suspended by the lower Court. The use of the word "shall" in the rule indicates the mandatory nature of the declaration. The judgment emphasized the importance of following clear statutory language without the need for further interpretation. Therefore, the Court held that a revision petition against conviction is only permissible when it includes a declaration of the convicted person's custody status or surrender post-conviction, unless the sentence has been suspended by the lower Court. The matter was scheduled for further consideration by the regular bench as per the ruling.
|
