High Court Cannot Exempt Convict From Surrendering In Exercise Of S.482 CrPC Power: Supreme Court Disagrees With Earlier Judgment

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that it would be impermissible for the High Court to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to exempt a convict from the requirement of surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent findings of conviction.

“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.”, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

Despite his conviction, the petitioner had not surrendered to serve the sentence imposed on him. Instead, he filed an application seeking exemption from surrendering.

The High Court held that the application filed by the petitioner in the revision seeking exemption to surrender is not maintainable in view of the specific provision contained in Rule 48 of Chapter 10 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The petitioner's contention was based on another co-ordinate bench decision of Vivek Rai & Anr. vs. High Court of Jharkhand, (2015) 12 SCC 86 to contend that it is a well-settled principle of law that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, may consider it appropriate to grant exemption from surrendering having regard to the nature and circumstances of a particular case; and, in view thereof, the High Court was in error in holding that in no case is an application seeking exemption from surrendering is maintainable.

Unable to agree with the petitioner's contention, the court found the proposition of law laid down in Vivek Rai's case to be debatable.

“It could lead to a travesty of justice if Section 482 of the Code were read in a manner extending liberty to a convict to urge a high court to exercise its inherent power to grant exemption from surrender prior to entertainment of a revision petition, when there are concurrent findings rendered by two courts of competent jurisdiction – conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmance thereof by the appellate court - and particularly when it is the duty of a high court, even under Section 482, to give effect to orders passed under the Code.”, the court reasoned.

Since the CrPC doesn't contain a provision permitting a convict to file an application seeking an exemption from surrender, the court held that the omission in the Code with regard to providing an avenue for a convict suffering a sentence to seek exemption from surrender, pending a revision, is a conscious act of the legislature.

Though the bench disagreed with the view taken in Vivek Rai's case and felt that the reference to a larger bench is desirable, however looking into the merits of the petitioner's claim; and, having regard to the order being passed, the court doesn't consider it necessary to refer.

“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.”, the court said.

The petitioner sought an exemption from surrendering on account of suffering from hepatitis, but the court refused to provide relief because there were no laboratory test reports placed on record that there exists an exceptional reason for granting the prayer of the petitioner.

“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 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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Prakash Shah, Adv. Mr. Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. appeared for the petitioner.

Case Details: DAULAT SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Diary No(s). 20900/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 552

Click here to read/download the judgment