Dismissed¶29

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CRLR/831/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of criminal revision; surrender precondition prior to filing revision; Chapter XVIII Rule (4) Allahabad High Court Rules 1952; certificate of surrender; Section 138 NI Act conviction; Section 148 NI Act non-compliance; appeal dismissed by Sessions Judge Rampur; revision dismissed with liberty to file afresh after surrender; Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, 2023 INSC 822; Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341; Abdul Shahid, J.; Allahabad High Court CRLR No. 831 of 2026; decided February 11, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh criminal revision after surrendering before the learned trial court. ¶29

Balbir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file a fresh criminal revision after surrendering before the learned trial court.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision is maintainable where the revisionist, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, did not surrender before the trial court prior to filing the revision, as required by Chapter XVIII Rule (4) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

¶26

Court's answer

It is an admitted fact that the revisionist/accused Balbir Singh did not surrender before the learned trial court prior to filing of the criminal revision and still has not surrendered, whereas as per the provisions of the Allahabad High Court Rules surrender is required.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the revisionist neither complied with the order of the learned trial court nor of the appellate court and still has not surrendered before the trial court, in view of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 the criminal revision is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Key takeaways

The criminal revision is dismissed, with liberty to the revisionist/accused to file a fresh criminal revision after surrendering before the learned trial court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Allahabad High Court) against order dated 10.12.2025 of the Sessions Judge, Rampur dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025 for non-compliance of Section 148 NI Act, whereby the revisionist's conviction under Section 138 NI Act (one year simple imprisonment and Rs. 4 lakh fine, default six months simple imprisonment) stood. Held: under Chapter XVIII Rule (4) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, where a sentence of imprisonment has been awarded, the petition/application must contain a certificate that the accused has surrendered; the revisionist admittedly neither complied with the trial court's and appellate court's orders nor surrendered before filing the revision. The criminal revision was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed, with liberty to file a fresh criminal revision after surrendering before the trial court. Supreme Court precedents placed reliance upon by counsel (Jamboo Bhandari, 2023 INSC 822, quoting Surinder Singh Deswal, 2019 (11) SCC 341) were noticed but no relief resulted on the facts.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 831 of 2026

¶3

Balbir Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Najakat Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025 (Balbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that a complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2818 of 2019 (Balbinder Singh Vs. Balbir Singh), under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶11

Learned trial court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Rampur had decided the said complaint No. 2818 of 2019 under Section 138 of NI Act after complete of trial on 9.9.2025, whereby the revisionist Balbir Singh has been convicted and sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 4 lacs. In non payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

¶12

Being aggrieved by the said judgement dated 9.9.2025, the revisionist/Balbir Singh filed a Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025 (Balbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur. The said appeal has been dismissed due to non compliance of

¶13

CRLR No. 831 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Section 148 of NI Act on 10.12.2025. Thereafter, the present criminal revision has been filed and the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the criminal appellate court has been challenged before this Court in this revision.

¶16

Learned AGA has submitted and further the revisionist has also admitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, the revisionist has not surrendered before the learned trial court and filed the present criminal revision, whereas in view of provision of Chapter XVIII Rule (4) of Allahabad High Court, 1952, surrender is required prior to filing of the criminal revision.

¶17

Rule (4) of Chapter XVIII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads as under:

¶18

"(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 he was on bail, he has surrendered to it. In a case in which bail has been granted by the Court appealed from order sub-section (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the fact shall be stated in the petition of the appeal indicating the period of which such bail has been granted."

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and others; 2023 INSC 822 and placed reliance on paragraph no. 4 of the said judgement which reads as under:

¶20

"4. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and others V. Virender Gandhi,; 2019 (11) SCC 341, the High Court proceeded on the footing that, as this Court has interpreted the word "may" appearing in Section 148 as "shall", the relief of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C can be granted only by directing the accused to deposit minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount."

¶21

CRLR No. 831 of 2026

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment that "in these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 9.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposit, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored revision petitions, the interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate.

¶24

The present matter is subjudice before this Court in this criminal revision. There are two concurrent judgments, one passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 9.9.2025, wherein simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 4 lacs has been imposed on the revisionist/accused. He did not comply the order and preferred the criminal appeal No. 93 of 2025. The said criminal appeal was also dismissed on 10.12.2025. Thereafter, the present criminal revision is filed before this Court.

¶25

It is admitted fact that the revisionist/accused Balbir Singh has not surrendered before the learned trial court prior to filing of this criminal revision and still he has not surrendered, whereas, as per provisions of Allahabad High Court Rules, surrender is required. The revisionist had been convicted by the learned trial court and his criminal appeal is also dismissed by the criminal appellate court.

¶26

In view thereof, neither he complied the order passed by the learned trial court nor of the order of the appellate court and he still has not surrendered before the trial court. Hence, in view of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (supra), the criminal revision is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

CRLR No. 831 of 2026

¶28

¶29

The criminal revision is accordingly, dismissed . However, the revisionist/accused is provided liberty to file a fresh criminal revision, if he desire after surrendering before the learned trial court.

¶30

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶31

February 11, 2026

¶32

sfa/

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Harcharan Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others