2019 (7) TMI 1884 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - appellant has absconded - maintainability of revision against conviction and sentence - HELD THAT - A bare reading of the rules, no revision shall be entertained against any conviction and sentence if the applicant is absconded and not obeying the order of trial Court as well as appellate Court. During absconding of the applicant, revision is not tenable before this Court. The applicant has not filed any application to the effect that the applicant due to some disability could not appear before the Court and made a prayer to entertain the revision in the absconding stage of the applicant. Meaning thereby the applicant is not obeying the law. Legal maxim Dura Lex Sed Lex, which means it is harsh, but it is the law , stands attracted in the present situation. When this revision is not maintainable ab initio, no further proceeding can be considered without admission of this revision. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Absconding of the applicant during the criminal revision process.
2. Legal implications of absconding on the maintainability of the revision.
3. Interpretation of Chapter-10 Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.
4. Application of legal maxim "Dura Lex Sed Lex" in the present situation.
5. Precedent set by the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P., 2012(3) MPLJ 534.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the applicant being absconding during the criminal revision process. The applicant had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment along with a compensation order. Despite the conviction being affirmed by the appellate court, the applicant did not surrender and remained absconded, failing to obey the court orders.

2. The judgment highlights the legal implications of absconding on the maintainability of the revision. It is noted that as per Section 393 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judgment of the appellate court affirming the conviction and sentence becomes final. The applicant's failure to surrender and obey court orders rendered the revision non-tenable before the High Court, as no revision can be entertained against a conviction when the applicant is absconding.

3. The interpretation of Chapter-10 Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 is crucial in this case. The rule mandates that a memorandum of appeal or revision petition against conviction must declare the convicted person's custody status or surrender post-conviction. The absence of such declaration, coupled with the applicant's absconding, rendered the revision unsustainable before the court.

4. The judgment invokes the legal maxim "Dura Lex Sed Lex," emphasizing that while the law may be harsh, it must be obeyed. The court underscores that parties and counsel should adhere to legal requirements, and revisions not in compliance with the law cannot be entertained. The applicant's persistent non-compliance with court orders and absconding further reinforced the dismissal of the revision.

5. The judgment references the precedent set by the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P., 2012(3) MPLJ 534, which established that a revision petition against conviction is only tenable if it includes a declaration of the convicted person's custody status or surrender post-conviction, except in cases where the sentence has been suspended. This precedent aligns with the legal principles applied in the present case, leading to the dismissal of the revision due to its lack of merit.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the revision application due to the applicant's absconding, non-compliance with court orders, and failure to adhere to legal requirements outlined in the relevant rules and precedents.