Rohit Gupta v. Sanjay Gupta and another), under Section

Police Station New Agra, Agra. The revisionists had challenged the said order dated 23.12.2024 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra, in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2025 (Sanjay Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 22.9.2025 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed. Thereafter without surrendering and complying of both the concurrent conviction and sentences order, the revisionists have preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.

2. Prima facie, learned counsel for the revisionists presses the application of exemption and prayed this Court may kindly allowed abovementioned application and to exempt the revisionists to surrender and this revision may be heard on merits.

3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revision by contending that 2 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 revisionists have been convicted and sentenced by the two concurrent judgments, hence his criminal revision is not maintainable without surrendering and he is not entitled for exemption.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3557 of 2024 (Dharamveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein in the case of under Section 138 of N.I. Act after concurrent judgment of law court and appellate court, the appellate court has further directed to the appellant to surrender before the trial court within 15 days. This Court had passed a detailed order and held in paragraph 17 that a convict cannot seek exemption from surrender from this Court in revision after dismissal of his appeal against conviction and sentence as a matter of right and the prayer for exemption from surrender will be dealt with on cases to case basis.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Praveen Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others passed in Criminal Revision No. 6045 of 2024 2025 reported in 2025 0 Supreme Court (All) 73, wherein this Court has specifically dealt that matter. The paragraph nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 of the judgment are as follows: "32. Now, this Court proceeds to consider the purport of Rule 2 and Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 in the matter of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. It is apparent that Sections 235, 248 and 353 Cr.P.C. categorically provide that on conviction of an accused, he has to surrender before the court concerned and in his presence, the court would take decision in respect of the sentence. If the provisions made in the different sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure are considered together, it is patently manifest that after conviction, it is obligatory on the convict to surrender before the trial court and if he has not surrendered, it is duty of the court concerned to ensure the surrender of the convict before it.

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 3 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 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.

35. It is also noteworthy that once the revisionist, while filing the instant criminal revision, has not sought exemption from his surrender and has also not narrated the circumstances in which he is not in a position to surrender, there is no occasion for this Court to venture into the issue as to whether the revisionist can be exempted from surrender.

36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly keeping in view the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of 4 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 the Rules of 1952 and further keeping in view that the remedy of revision provided under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary remedy, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to entertain this revision.

37. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed."

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 20900 of 2024 (Daulat Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) dated 30.7.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 which are as follows: "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.

16. Having regard to our disagreement with the view expressed in Vivek Rai (supra), which is a decision of a coordinate Bench,reference to a larger Bench is desirable. However, notwithstanding the same and notwithstanding the finding on maintainability returned by the High Court, we have looked into the merits of the petitioner's claim; and, having regard to the order we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to make a reference.

17. The premise/event citing which exemption from surrendering was claimed by the petitioner before the High Court is that of old-age related illness/ailments. Certificates issued by a doctor, which the petitioner relied on, are available at pages 68 and 73 of the paper book. These certificates have once again been relied on before us by learned counsel for the petitioner to persuade us hold that the High Court was in error in not granting relief, as claimed.

18. We have read the certificates. It is abundantly clear from its contents that the same have been procured by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking exemption. If indeed the petitioner is suffering from hepatitis, as 5 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 claimed, laboratory test reports ought to have been placed on record for our consideration. In the absence thereof, we are not impressed that there exists exceptional reason for granting the prayer of the petitioner.

19. The special leave petition is dismissed. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of."

7. The revisionists have been convicted by the Magistrate Court after affording full opportunity of hearing as per procedure established by law and thereafter the revisionists preferred the criminal appeal which also disposed of on merits, after following principle of natural justice. Hence the Trial Court as well as Criminal Appellate Court has passed judgment of conviction and sentence after following the procedure established by law.

8. In Arvind Maneklal Bhagat vs. State of Gujarat [1986 LawSuit (Guj) 129] and in Girish Harsukhray Vasavada vs Shankarlal Govindji Joshi and another in Criminal Revision No. 1856 of 2025 decided on

13.10.2025, A.F.R., it has been held that so far as release on bail for filing a revision application is concerned, there is no provision anywhere in the Code which would enable a Court of Appeal or trial Court to suspend the sentence or release the accused on bail on the ground that he wants to file a revision application before the higher Court. The legislature has made specific provisions as per sub-section (3) of Section 389 of Cr.P.C., to release the accused on bail when intends to prefer an appeal and as such there is no provision at all anywhere in the Code empowering the Court to release the accused on bail or suspend the sentence in case, he intends to file revision application the Court convicting the accused.

9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it can be sum up that the legislature did not intend to confer any such power in such circumstances to the appellate Court to stay and / or suspend and to keep the order in abeyance or to extend the time to surrender to the accused so as to enable the accused to file revision application.

10. The appellate Court became functus officio and seized with any power to exercise post disposal of the appeal. In Arvind Maneklal Bhagat (Supra) held that "[4] I may mention here that I have found in some other cases also that the Judges of the Court of Session have given directions similar to the 6 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 one given by the learned Addl. Session Judge in the present case. Such directions cannot be given by the Court of Session while dismissing the appeal The Court of Session cannot give any such time for surrendering. The moment the Sessions Court dismisses the appeal, it follows that the accused whose appeal has been dismissed has to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. It is only the High Court which can pass appropriate orders in this regard. Order accordingly."

11. It is held in Girish Harsukhray Vasavada (Supra), the appellate court cannot extend the time to surrender, or grant time to file the revision after pronouncement of sentence, after pronouncement of order of sentence in absence of legal immunity, and the only recourse available with the learned first appellate court is to forthwith relegate the case papers to the court concerned for execution of sentence of imprisonment as per the provision of Section 418 of Cr.P.C. (Section 458 of B.N.S.S.).

12. In view of all the facts, reasons and the provisions of law, this Court is of the considered view, that in view of the circumstances, the revisionists are not entitled for any exemption. Hence his application to exempt to surrender the revisionist and this revision may be heard on merits is hereby rejected. Order on revision

13. Since the application for exemption is dismissed, the present criminal revision is also dismissed with liberty to the revisionists to approach the competent forum/court for seeking the relief.

14. Certified copy of the impugned orders may be returned to learned counsel for the revisionists by retaining a xerox copy of the same on record. November 21, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.)

Police Station New Agra, Agra. The revisionists had challenged the said order dated 23.12.2024 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra, in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2025 (Sanjay Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 22.9.2025 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed. Thereafter without surrendering and complying of both the concurrent conviction and sentences order, the revisionists have preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.

2. Prima facie, learned counsel for the revisionists presses the application of exemption and prayed this Court may kindly allowed abovementioned application and to exempt the revisionists to surrender and this revision may be heard on merits.

3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revision by contending that 2 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 revisionists have been convicted and sentenced by the two concurrent judgments, hence his criminal revision is not maintainable without surrendering and he is not entitled for exemption.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3557 of 2024 (Dharamveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein in the case of under Section 138 of N.I. Act after concurrent judgment of law court and appellate court, the appellate court has further directed to the appellant to surrender before the trial court within 15 days. This Court had passed a detailed order and held in paragraph 17 that a convict cannot seek exemption from surrender from this Court in revision after dismissal of his appeal against conviction and sentence as a matter of right and the prayer for exemption from surrender will be dealt with on cases to case basis.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Praveen Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others passed in Criminal Revision No. 6045 of 2024 2025 reported in 2025 0 Supreme Court (All) 73, wherein this Court has specifically dealt that matter. The paragraph nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 of the judgment are as follows: "32. Now, this Court proceeds to consider the purport of Rule 2 and Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952 in the matter of criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. It is apparent that Sections 235, 248 and 353 Cr.P.C. categorically provide that on conviction of an accused, he has to surrender before the court concerned and in his presence, the court would take decision in respect of the sentence. If the provisions made in the different sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure are considered together, it is patently manifest that after conviction, it is obligatory on the convict to surrender before the trial court and if he has not surrendered, it is duty of the court concerned to ensure the surrender of the convict before it.

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 3 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 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.

35. It is also noteworthy that once the revisionist, while filing the instant criminal revision, has not sought exemption from his surrender and has also not narrated the circumstances in which he is not in a position to surrender, there is no occasion for this Court to venture into the issue as to whether the revisionist can be exempted from surrender.

36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly keeping in view the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of 4 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 the Rules of 1952 and further keeping in view that the remedy of revision provided under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary remedy, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to entertain this revision.

37. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed."

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 20900 of 2024 (Daulat Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) dated 30.7.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 which are as follows: "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.

16. Having regard to our disagreement with the view expressed in Vivek Rai (supra), which is a decision of a coordinate Bench,reference to a larger Bench is desirable. However, notwithstanding the same and notwithstanding the finding on maintainability returned by the High Court, we have looked into the merits of the petitioner's claim; and, having regard to the order we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to make a reference.

17. The premise/event citing which exemption from surrendering was claimed by the petitioner before the High Court is that of old-age related illness/ailments. Certificates issued by a doctor, which the petitioner relied on, are available at pages 68 and 73 of the paper book. These certificates have once again been relied on before us by learned counsel for the petitioner to persuade us hold that the High Court was in error in not granting relief, as claimed.

18. We have read the certificates. It is abundantly clear from its contents that the same have been procured by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking exemption. If indeed the petitioner is suffering from hepatitis, as 5 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 claimed, laboratory test reports ought to have been placed on record for our consideration. In the absence thereof, we are not impressed that there exists exceptional reason for granting the prayer of the petitioner.

19. The special leave petition is dismissed. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of."

7. The revisionists have been convicted by the Magistrate Court after affording full opportunity of hearing as per procedure established by law and thereafter the revisionists preferred the criminal appeal which also disposed of on merits, after following principle of natural justice. Hence the Trial Court as well as Criminal Appellate Court has passed judgment of conviction and sentence after following the procedure established by law.

8. In Arvind Maneklal Bhagat vs. State of Gujarat [1986 LawSuit (Guj) 129] and in Girish Harsukhray Vasavada vs Shankarlal Govindji Joshi and another in Criminal Revision No. 1856 of 2025 decided on

13.10.2025, A.F.R., it has been held that so far as release on bail for filing a revision application is concerned, there is no provision anywhere in the Code which would enable a Court of Appeal or trial Court to suspend the sentence or release the accused on bail on the ground that he wants to file a revision application before the higher Court. The legislature has made specific provisions as per sub-section (3) of Section 389 of Cr.P.C., to release the accused on bail when intends to prefer an appeal and as such there is no provision at all anywhere in the Code empowering the Court to release the accused on bail or suspend the sentence in case, he intends to file revision application the Court convicting the accused.

9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it can be sum up that the legislature did not intend to confer any such power in such circumstances to the appellate Court to stay and / or suspend and to keep the order in abeyance or to extend the time to surrender to the accused so as to enable the accused to file revision application.

10. The appellate Court became functus officio and seized with any power to exercise post disposal of the appeal. In Arvind Maneklal Bhagat (Supra) held that "[4] I may mention here that I have found in some other cases also that the Judges of the Court of Session have given directions similar to the 6 CRLR No. 7772 of 2025 one given by the learned Addl. Session Judge in the present case. Such directions cannot be given by the Court of Session while dismissing the appeal The Court of Session cannot give any such time for surrendering. The moment the Sessions Court dismisses the appeal, it follows that the accused whose appeal has been dismissed has to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. It is only the High Court which can pass appropriate orders in this regard. Order accordingly."

11. It is held in Girish Harsukhray Vasavada (Supra), the appellate court cannot extend the time to surrender, or grant time to file the revision after pronouncement of sentence, after pronouncement of order of sentence in absence of legal immunity, and the only recourse available with the learned first appellate court is to forthwith relegate the case papers to the court concerned for execution of sentence of imprisonment as per the provision of Section 418 of Cr.P.C. (Section 458 of B.N.S.S.).

12. In view of all the facts, reasons and the provisions of law, this Court is of the considered view, that in view of the circumstances, the revisionists are not entitled for any exemption. Hence his application to exempt to surrender the revisionist and this revision may be heard on merits is hereby rejected. Order on revision

13. Since the application for exemption is dismissed, the present criminal revision is also dismissed with liberty to the revisionists to approach the competent forum/court for seeking the relief.

14. Certified copy of the impugned orders may be returned to learned counsel for the revisionists by retaining a xerox copy of the same on record. November 21, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.)