AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 24.04.2006 passed by fourth Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 662/2005, by which the judgment dated 19.12.2005 passed by JMFC, Shivpuri in
Criminal Case No. 5/2005 has been affirmed.
The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one
year and a fine of Rs.35,000/-.
Necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act on the allegation that the applicant had taken a loan from him and had given a cheque which stood bounce because of
insufficient funds. After issuing notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act.
The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing both the parties convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.35,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the applicant filed a criminal appeal, which too has been dismissed by judgment
dated 24.04.2006 passed by fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 662/2005.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the present revision has been
filed.
It is important to mention here that after the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant did not surrender before the trial Court, hence, this revision has
been filed without surrendering. Initially, the respondent had taken an objection with regard to maintainability of this revision on the ground that as
the applicant did not surrender before the trial Court and since she is still absconding, therefore, the revision should be dismissed at the threshold.
This Court by order dated 13.07.2011, after relying upon the judgment in the case of Dhanpat Rai Malhotra and others Vs. C.B.I., New Delhi
reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 278 held that the revision is maintainable and directed that if the petitioner surrenders herself before the Trial
Court in compliance of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against her and after taking her into judicial custody, if she furnishes a bail
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, then she be released on bail and the
jail sentence shall remain suspended. However, in spite of the bail granted by this Court, the applicant neither surrendered before the Trial Court
nor furnish the bail. Again the objection was raised by the respondent and accordingly by order dated 09.03.2015, the applicant was granted 8
days time by way of last opportunity to furnish requisite bail bonds. Again on 16.06.2015 a submission was made by the respondent that the
applicant has not surrendered and accordingly by order dated 10.07.2015, the order dated 13.07.2011, by which the applicant was granted bail,
was recalled and bail was cancelled.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant and the respondent that the applicant has not surrendered after the dismissal of her appeal and
this Court in the case of Deepak Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534, after considering the Rule 48 of Madhya
Pradesh High Court Rules has held that in case, if the revision is filed without making a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in
custody or has surrendered after the conviction except in case where the sentence has already been suspended by the Court below, then the
revision shall not be maintainable.
In the present case, the applicant was convicted by the Trial Court in the year 2005 and the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated
24.04.2006. In spite of the dismissal of the appeal, neither the applicant has paid the amount nor has surrendered and without surrendering before
the Trial Court filed the present revision and in spite of the bail granted by this Court, the applicant did not avail the same and did not surrender
before the Court and did not furnish the bail, as a result of which, the bail granted by this Court has also been cancelled.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that as the applicant did not furnish the bail in spite of
an opportunity granted by this Court and has not surrendered before the Trial Court after the cancellation of her bail, therefore, the revision filed by
the applicant without surrendering before the Appellate Court is not maintainable in the light of the Rule 48 of Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed being not maintainable.