Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Paramveer Singh Rawat on 19 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.366 of 2025
Rajendra Bhatia
--Revisionist
Versus
Paramveer Singh Rawat
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. R.K. Shah, learned counsel for the revisionist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist
against the judgment and order dated 26.05.2025 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar District Pauri
Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2023, Rajendra Bhatia
vs. Paramveer Singh & another, whereby the appeal
preferred by the revisionist-Rajendra Bhatia has been
rejected and the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.138 of 2018,
Paramveer Singh Rawat vs. Rajendra Bhatia, whereby the
revisionist was convicted and sentenced, has been upheld.
2. An exemption application (IA No.1/2025) has
been moved by the revisionist for exempting him
surrendering before the trial court after conviction.
3. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist and particularly the fact
that he has been convicted by trial court and his appeal
has been dismissed by the appellant court, this Court is of
the view that revisionist should surrender before the trial
1
court before filing the present revision.
4. This Court is particularly pained by the fact that
in spite of the fact that Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III
of the Rules, 1952 being in existence, the revisionist is
approaching this Court without surrendering and
producing the certificate. Relevant Rules are quoted
hereinbelow:-
“3(4) In a case in which a sentence of imprisonment has
been awarded the petition of appeal or the application for
revision shall also contain a certificate signed by the
Advocate for the appellant or the applicant, as the case
may be, stating that the accused was not on bail or that, if
was on bail, he has surrendered to it. In a case in which
bail has been granted by the Court appealed from under
sub-section (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the fact shall be stated in the petition of
appeal indicating the period for which such bail has been
granted.”
The bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it
quite clear that the rule is of mandatory nature as the word
‘shall’ has been used. Moreover, my view is further fortified
by recent judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Smt. Kausar Khan vs. Ramesh Chandwani
in Criminal Revision No.3251 of 2024 decided on
11.11.2024. Relevant paras are herein quoted below:-
“2. On perusal of the memo of revision, it is apparent that
applicant/accused is absconding and despite his conviction
from two Courts, he has not surrendered to serve the sentence
imposed on him. Rule 48 Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules,
2008 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 the convicted person is in
custody or has surrendered after the conviction. Where
the sentence has been so suspended, the factum of such2
suspension and its period shall be stated in the
memorandum of appeal or revision petition, as also in the
application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. An application under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall, as far as
possible, be in Format No. 11 and shall be accompanied
by an affidavit of the appellant/applicant or some other
person acquainted with the facts of the case.”
3. In the case in hand, applicant who is absconding has not
surrendered. Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 30.07.2024,
passed in {[Special Leave (Criminal) Diary No.(s).20900 of 2024)]
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
25.01.2024, in CRLR No.4402/2022 in the case of Daulat Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh} has held that a revision is not
maintainable where accused has not surrendered despite his
conviction to serve the sentence imposed on him and exemption
cannot be allowed by High Court. Hon’ble Apex Court
considered the judgment of Vivek Rai and others Vs. High Court
of Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86 and upheld the
order of this court and held as under:-
“15. We do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to
accept as a sound proposition of law that a high court, in
exercise of its inherent power, may grant exemption from
surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent
findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving effect
to orders passed under the Code and/or to prevent
abuse of the process of a court.”
4. As applicant has not surrendered this revision being filed in
violation of Rule 48 of Chapter X of M.P. High Court Rules is not
maintainable.
5. Consequently, this revision, being not maintainable, is
dismissed.”
And Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case
of Praveen Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P. in Criminal
Revision No.6045 of 2024 decided on 04.03.2025 expressed
the same view. Rules under scrutiny before Allahabad High
Court are pari materia with Rules of Uttarakhand High
Court. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment are quoted
herein below:-
3
“33. The Allahabad High Court had framed rules known as
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Rule 2 read with Rule 3(4) of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 categorically
provide that a convict should file a certificate along with the
criminal revision certifying that, either he was not on bail or if he
was on bail, he had surrendered before it and once the said
certificate is not accompanied with the revision, it would not be
in order and would be liable to be rejected by the High Court. It
is noteworthy that the rule making authority in Rule 3(4) of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 had intentionally
used the words “shall also contain a certificate” thereby to make
the requirements under the rule mandatory for the revisionist
meaning thereby that unless the convict, while filing criminal
revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
gives a certificate that he had surrendered, the criminal revision
would not be in order and would not be entertained by the High
Court. However, if Rule 2 is read with Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII
of Part III of the Rules of 1952, that leaves the scope for filing an
application seeking exemption from surrender by the revisionist
on the basis of some extraordinary circumstances and if the
said exemption is prayed for, the High Court can take into
consideration the said application seeking exemption and can
pass necessary order.
34. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is apparent
from the record that the revisionist after his conviction by the
trial court has not surrendered and even during pendency of his
appeal before the appellate court, he did not surrender. The
revisionist, while filing the instant criminal revision
under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., has
not annexed the certificate as required under Rule 3(4) of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 that he has
surrendered therefore, the instant criminal revision is not in
order and as such, in view of the provisions made in Rule 2 of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952, the instant
criminal revision cannot be entertained and is liable to be
rejected.”
Where the respective High Courts have
dismissed the revisions filed without complying with the
pari materia rules as which is there in part III Chapter
XVIII, Rule 3(4) of the Uttarakhand High Court Rules.
Moreover, a pari materia Rules of Jharkhand High Court
has been held to be intra vires in the case of Vivek Rai &4
another vs. High Court of Jharkhand; 2015 (12) SCC
86 by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
5. This Court is although cognizant of the judgment
given by Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Shubham Singhal vs. High Court of Uttarakhand decided
on 26.05.2023 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.84 of 2023, but
after going through the judgment, this Court is of the view
that the said Bench has not considered Part III Chapter
XVIII, Rule 3(4) of the Uttarakhand High Court Rules and
has also opined only to the extent that the registry will not
insist upon the certificate, but has nowhere opined that the
Bench of this Court which is seized of the matter can also
not insist upon the production of the said certificate.
6. Accordingly, the exemption application is
rejected.
7. List on 30.07.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.06.2025
AK5