Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Oct 2024CRLR/450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convicted cheque-dishonour accused sought to pursue criminal revision and suspension of sentence without surrendering after dismissal of his appeal. Relying on precedent and Section 430 BNSS, the High Court held the petition not maintainable without surrender and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

None granted; revision petition and application for suspension of sentence dismissed.

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:44220]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 450/2024

¶4

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son Of Parmaram Bairwa, Owner Filing Station Industrial Area, Bandikui, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Yogesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Ramcharan Sharma, Resident Of Bheru Ghati, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Rana for Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶12

19/10/2024

¶13

Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-accused Ramesh Chand Bairwa after dismissal of criminal appeal No. 8/2019 affirming conviction under Section 138 of NI Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar in criminal case No. 21/2011 on 02.11.2019. This petitioneraccused was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment of four months with fine of ₹5,00,000/-.

¶14

Office has pointed out that petitioner has not surrendered as per certificate under Rule 311(3) of RHC Rules.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and he has a right to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. He further submits

[2024:RJ-JP:44220]

[CRLR-450/2024]

(2 of 3)

that petitioner is ready and willing to comply any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that he has received a custody certificate from Central Jail, Alwar informing custody of one Ramesh Chand Bairwa in another matter relating to N.I. Act.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

A perusal of record reflects that a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed by complainant Yogesh Kumar Sharma before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh District, Alwar and after full trial, accused Ramesh Chand Bairwa was convicted under Secation 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 2 years with fine of ₹5,00,000/-. Aggrieved from aforesaid, a criminal appeal was preferred and same was partially allowed and substantive sentence was reduced.

¶23

As per certificate submitted on 01.10.2024 the petitioner is not in custody and he has not surrendered after dismissal of criminal appeal on 03.02.2024. 8. Custody certificate filed by learned Public Prosecutor indicate that a person named Ramesh Chand Bairwa son of Sh. Pramaram Bairwa resident of Bhakedi, Police Station Laxmangarh, Alwar is in custody in case No. 410/2022 from 20.12.2023. This custody certificate suggests that Ramesh Chand Bairwa was convicted on 20.12.2023.

¶24

The address of Ramesh Chand bairwa in the current petition and also the judgments of the Courts below does not match address as provided in custody certificate. Similarly, the details of

[2024:RJ-JP:44220]

[CRLR-450/2024]

(3 of 3)

case mentioned in custody certificate is also not matching with the details of present case, therefore, this custody certificate is not related to present case.

¶29

We have considered the maintainability of present petition filed without surrender by the petitioner.

¶30

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mrs. Mario Luis

¶31

Vs. Meenakshi Tikkiwal (S.B. Criminal Revision petition No.

¶32

894/2023) has considered Rule 311 and 323 of Rajasthan High Court Rules along with judgments on the subject and ruled that unless accused surrenders his revision petition and application for suspension of sentence is not maintainable.

¶33

Very recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered similar issue in case of Daulat Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Case Diary No. 20900/2024), particularly the issue of surrender after concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that even exemption cannot be granted under the inherent powers by the High Court. Section 430 of BNSS (old provision 389 of Cr.P.C.) also does not contemplate any provision for suspension after dismissal of criminal appeal by the Appellate Court affirming the conviction and sentence, thus, the petitioner is required to be surrender in order to maintain his revision petition.

¶35

Considering aforesaid, the revision petition and application for suspension of sentence is not maintainable.

¶36

In view of aforesaid, the revision petition and application for suspension of sentence are hereby dismissed.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶38

MONU /19

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay S/O Mohar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijay S/O Mishri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj S/O Ramlal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Prakash, S/O Shri Jagan Nath Vs State of

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Fateh Mohammaad Alim S/O Abdul Alim Vs Om Prakash Chamdiya S/O Ramprasad