# Baldhir Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 473
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4747 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baldhir-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-53213
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Sections 60(3) & 63(1) - Confiscation of
vehicle - Prerequisite of trial conclusion -
Revision against order of Special Judge
rejecting
release
application
and
confiscating vehicle - Innova Car seized in
connection with offence under Section
8/21 NDPS Act - Vehicle confiscated
before
conclusion
of
trial
-
Held,
confiscation
impermissible
prior
to
conclusion of trial and determination of
guilt - Section 63(1) NDPS Act mandates
that confiscation can only be ordered
when accused is convicted, acquitted or
discharged
-
Trial
court
erred
in
mechanically
confiscating
the
vehicle
without considering release application on
merits
-
Order
set
aside-Revision
application allowed. (Paras 13 to 16, 18,
19, and 20)

HELD:
This Court finds that Section 60 (3) of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 gives power to the trial court
to confiscate the vehicle used for carrying
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Section
63 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 provides the
procedure for confiscation and there, it is
provided that confiscation of any article can be
done under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985
when the accused is convicted or acquitted or
discharged. (Para 13)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the
aforesaid Sections 60(3) and 63(1) of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in its judgement rendered in
the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) and had
categorically held that the vehicle used for
carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance can be confiscated only on conclusion
of the trial i.e. when the accused is convicted or
acquitted or discharged.... (Para 14)

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) is
very clear and provides that in the matters of
offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985, the vehicle involved for carrying the
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can be
confiscated only on conclusion of the trial. (Para
15)

So far as the second issue involved in this case
that whether in a case where an accused of a
crime punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985,
who is owner of the vehicle used in the crime,
can claim release of vehicle during the trial, is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgement rendered in the case of Bishwajit
Dey (Supra) had categorically held that normally
where the accused himself is owner of the
vehicle, the said vehicle should not be released
in his favour but the trial court is free to
consider and decide the case of release of
vehicle on its own merits as there is no straightjacket formula... (Para 17)

This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the aforesaid judgement rendered in the case
of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) had categorized various
eventualities and had held that normally where
the accused himself is owner of the vehicle used
for carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, the trial court may not release the
vehicle in favour of the accused but at the same
time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
observed that the discussion made in the
judgement should not be taken as laying down
rigid formula and it will be open to the trial
court to take a different view if the facts of the
case so warrant. Thus, this Court is of the view
that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
categorically held that it is for the trial court to
decide the case of release of vehicle, where
owner of the vehicle himself is accused of the
crime punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, on its
own merits. (Para 18)

Revision application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025 (Bishwajit Dey
vs The St. Of Assam) arising out of the Special
Leave Petition (Crl.)No.13370 of 2024

## Text

3 All. Baldhir Vs. State of U.P.
473
Sonbhadra
shall
ensure
that Case Crime No. 133 of 2019 is
investigated as a separate case and
a
separate
police
report
is
submitted in that case, as per law,
preferably, within a period of three
months from today."

38. From the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
by the Division Bench of this Court, it had
already been crystallized that where, the
different version of the incident is reported
by a different complainant giving a
different set of accused, then the second
First Information Report for the same
incident is permissible under law.

39. Now applying the aforesaid
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as by this Court in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is
apparent that the informant in the First
Information Report No. 0150 of 2024 is
Smt. Krishna Devi whereas, the revisionist
has filed another application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court. The
version of the incident in question, in the
F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Krishna Devi and in
the application filed by the revisionist
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., is altogether
different. The accused of the crime in the
First Information Report lodged by Smt.
Krishna Devi are different to that of the
accused in the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Therefore in view of the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there
is no prohibition/impediment in registering
the F.I.R. on the basis of the application
filed by the revisionist under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C.

40. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, this criminal revision is hereby
allowed. The
impugned
order
dated
11.03.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge
(Dacoity
Affected
Area
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 71 of 2024
(Rajendra Singh Vs. Vinod Singh and
Others), is hereby set-aside.

41. The Special Judge (Dacoity
Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions
Judge, Banda is directed to consider and
decide, the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
afresh in light of the observations made in
this order.

42. Since, the First Information
Report of Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Smt.
Krishna Devi had already been registered
and the investigation is in process, it is
expected that the learned Special Judge
(Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional
Sessions Judge, Banda shall hear and
decide the application of the revisionist
filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. within
one month from the date of the presentation
of the certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 473
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4747 of 2023

Baldhir ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Sangam Lal Kesharwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Sections 60(3) & 63(1) - Confiscation of
vehicle - Prerequisite of trial conclusion -
Revision against order of Special Judge
rejecting
release
application
and
confiscating vehicle - Innova Car seized in
connection with offence under Section
8/21 NDPS Act - Vehicle confiscated
before
conclusion
of
trial
-
Held,
confiscation
impermissible
prior
to
conclusion of trial and determination of
guilt - Section 63(1) NDPS Act mandates
that confiscation can only be ordered
when accused is convicted, acquitted or
discharged
-
Trial
court
erred
in
mechanically
confiscating
the
vehicle
without considering release application on
merits
-
Order
set
aside-Revision
application allowed. (Paras 13 to 16, 18,
19, and 20)

HELD:
This Court finds that Section 60 (3) of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 gives power to the trial court
to confiscate the vehicle used for carrying
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Section
63 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 provides the
procedure for confiscation and there, it is
provided that confiscation of any article can be
done under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985
when the accused is convicted or acquitted or
discharged. (Para 13)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the
aforesaid Sections 60(3) and 63(1) of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in its judgement rendered in
the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) and had
categorically held that the vehicle used for
carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance can be confiscated only on conclusion
of the trial i.e. when the accused is convicted or
acquitted or discharged.... (Para 14)

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) is
very clear and provides that in the matters of
offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985, the vehicle involved for carrying the
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can be
confiscated only on conclusion of the trial. (Para
15)

So far as the second issue involved in this case
that whether in a case where an accused of a
crime punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985,
who is owner of the vehicle used in the crime,
can claim release of vehicle during the trial, is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgement rendered in the case of Bishwajit
Dey (Supra) had categorically held that normally
where the accused himself is owner of the
vehicle, the said vehicle should not be released
in his favour but the trial court is free to
consider and decide the case of release of
vehicle on its own merits as there is no straightjacket formula... (Para 17)

This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the aforesaid judgement rendered in the case
of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) had categorized various
eventualities and had held that normally where
the accused himself is owner of the vehicle used
for carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, the trial court may not release the
vehicle in favour of the accused but at the same
time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
observed that the discussion made in the
judgement should not be taken as laying down
rigid formula and it will be open to the trial
court to take a different view if the facts of the
case so warrant. Thus, this Court is of the view
that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
categorically held that it is for the trial court to
decide the case of release of vehicle, where
owner of the vehicle himself is accused of the
crime punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, on its
own merits. (Para 18)

Revision application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025 (Bishwajit Dey
vs The St. Of Assam) arising out of the Special
Leave Petition (Crl.)No.13370 of 2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Sangam
Lal
Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist and Sri Brijendra Pratap
Singh, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State.
3 All. Baldhir Vs. State of U.P.
475
2. The instant criminal revision has
been
filed
challenging
therein,
the
judgement and order dated 20.06.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge
(N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur whereby,
the application filed by the revisionist for
release
of
his
Innova
Car,
bearing
Registration No. HR78-3205, had been
rejected
and
the
vehicle
had
been
confiscated
in
favour
of
the
State
Government.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are
that the revisionist is registered owner of
Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR783205. The police recovered ten grams of
smack from the aforesaid vehicle while the
revisionist was moving in the said vehicle.
The police had registered a criminal case as
Case Crime No. 509 of 2021 under Section
8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Police
Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur. The
Investigating
Officer,
after
collecting
evidence against the revisionist, had filed
Charge-Sheet before the competent court in
respect of the offence committed by the
revisionist punishable under Section 8/21
of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

4. The revisionist filed an
application for release of the aforesaid
Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR783205 in his favour. The police raised
objection over the aforesaid application for
release of the vehicle on the ground that the
revisionist is in habit of committing
offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985 and the vehicle in question had been
purchased by him out of the money earned
by the sale of the contraband substances.

5.

Learned
Special
Judge
(N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur had
passed an order on 20.06.2023 whereby, the
application filed by the revisionist for
release of the vehicle in question had been
rejected and simultaneously the said
vehicle had been confiscated.

6. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has submitted that a vehicle
carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance can be confiscated in exercise of
power under Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985 but the said power is to be
exercised as per the procedure prescribed
under Section 63(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985. It has further been submitted that
Section 63(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, in
categorical terms, provides that the power
of confiscation of any article including the
vehicle can be exercised only after the
accused is convicted or acquitted or
discharged i.e. only on conclusion of the
trial whereas in the present case, the trial
has yet not been concluded therefore, the
order passed by the trial court confiscating
the vehicle in question, on its face, is
unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal
Appeal
No.
87
of
2025
(Bishwajit Dey vs The State Of Assam)
arising out of the Special Leave Petition
(Crl.)No.13370 of 2024 and has submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
categorical terms, had held that any vehicle
seized in connection with the offence
punishable under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 can be
confiscated only after conclusion of the
trial i.e. when the accused is convicted or
acquitted or discharged whereas, in the case
of the revisionist, trial has yet not been
concluded therefore, the order passed by
the trial court confiscating the vehicle in
question, on its face, is illegal.
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has also argued that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement
rendered in the case of Bishwajit Dey
(Supra)
had
categorically
held
that
normally, where the accused himself is
owner of the vehicle used for carrying the
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance,
the vehicle may not be released in favour of
the accused owner but there is no straightjacket formula in that regard and therefore,
the trial court has to consider the
application filed for release of the vehicle
on its own merits whereas, in the present
case, the vehicle in question had been
confiscated
straightaway
and
the
application filed by the revisionist for
release of the vehicle has not been
considered on its own merits.

9. Learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State has
opposed this revision and has submitted
that the revisionist himself is owner of the
Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR783205 and he has been arrested while
carrying ten grams of smack in the
aforesaid vehicle. He further submits that
the police had submitted a report before the
trial court indicating therein that the
revisionist is habitual of committing
offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985 and in-fact, the vehicle in question
had been purchased out of the money
earned by the sale of contraband substances
and the said vehicle is also being used for
committing offences punishable under the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 therefore, the trial court
had rightly exercised power under Section
60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and thereby
had confiscated the vehicle in question.

10. Learned A.G.A. appearing for
the State has vehemently argued that there
is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in
the impugned order dated 20.06.2023
therefore,
the
revision
filed
by
the
revisionist is liable to be dismissed by this
Court.

11.

I
have
considered
the
arguments
advanced
by
the
learned
counsels appearing for the parties and have
perused the record of the revision.

12. Before proceeding to consider
the matter on merits, it would be apt to
have a look over the provisions made under
the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in respect of the
confiscation of a vehicle used for carrying
the
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic
substance. For ready reference, Section 60
and Section 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985
are extracted as under:

60.
Liability
of
illicit
drugs, substances, plants, articles
and
conveyances
to
confiscation.-

(1) Whenever any offence
punishable under this Act has been
committed,
the
narcotic
drug,
psychotropic substance, controlled
substance,
opium
poppy,
coca
plant, cannabis plant, materials,
apparatus and utensils in respect of
which or by means of which such
offence has been committed, shall
be liable to confiscation.
(2) Any narcotic drug or
psychotropic
substance
or
controlled
substances
lawfully
produced,
imported
inter-State,
exported inter-State, imported into
India, transported, manufactured,
possessed, used, purchased or sold
along with, or in addition to, any
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic
substance or controlled substances
3 All. Baldhir Vs. State of U.P.
477
which is liable to confiscation
under sub-section (1) and there
receptacles,
packages
and
coverings in which any narcotic
drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substances, materials,
apparatus or utensils liable to
confiscation under sub-section (1)
is found, and the other contents, if
any,
of
such
receptacles
or
packages shall likewise be liable to
confiscation.
(3)
Any
animal
or
conveyance used in carrying any
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic
substance or controlled substances,
or any article liable to confiscation
under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be liable to
confiscation, unless the owner of
the animal or conveyance proves
that it was so used without the
knowledge or connivance of the
owner himself, his agent, if any,
and the person-in-charge of the
animal or conveyance and that
each of them had taken all
reasonable
precautions
against
such use.

63. Procedure in making
confiscations.-(1) In the trial of
offences under this Act, whether the
accused is convicted or acquitted
or discharged, the court shall
decide whether any article or thing
seized under this Act is liable to
confiscation under section 60 or
section 61 or section 62 and, if it
decides that the article is so liable,
it
may
order
confiscation
accordingly.
(2) Where any article or
thing seized under this Act appears
to be liable to confiscation under
section 60 or section 61 or section
62, but the person who committed
the offence in connection therewith
is not known or cannot be found,
the court may inquire into and
decide such liability, and may order
confiscation accordingly:
Provided that no order of
confiscation of an article or thing
shall be made until the expiry of
one month from the date of seizure,
or without hearing any person who
may claim any right thereto and the
evidence, if any, which he produces
in respect of his claim:
Provided further that if any
such article or thing, other than a
narcotic
drug,
psychotropic
substance controlled substance, the
opium
poppy,
coca
plant
or
cannabis plant is liable to speedy
and natural decay, or if the court is
of opinion that its sale would be for
the benefit of its owner, it may at
any time direct it to be sold; and
the provisions of this sub-section
shall,
as
nearly
as
may
be
practicable, apply to the net
proceeds of the sale."

13. This Court finds that Section
60 (3) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 gives
power to the trial court to confiscate the
vehicle used for carrying narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance. Section 63 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 provides the procedure
for confiscation and there, it is provided
that confiscation of any article can be done
under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985
when the accused is convicted or acquitted
or discharged.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had considered the aforesaid Sections 60(3)
and 63(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in its
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgement
rendered
in
the
case
of
Bishwajit
Dey
(Supra)
and
had
categorically held that the vehicle used for
carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance can be confiscated only on
conclusion of the trial i.e. when the accused
is convicted or acquitted or discharged. For
ready reference, paragraph 21 of the
judgement
rendered
in
the
case
of
Bishwajit Dey (Supra) is extracted as
under:

"21. Upon a reading of the
NDPS Act, this Court is of the view
that the seized vehicles can be
confiscated by the trial court only
on conclusion of the trial when the
accused is convicted or acquitted
or discharged. Further, even where
the Court is of the view that the
vehicle is liable for confiscation, it
must give an opportunity of hearing
to the person who may claim any
right to the seized vehicle before
passing an order of confiscation.
However, the seized vehicle is not
liable to confiscation if the owner
of the seized vehicle can prove that
the vehicle was used by the accused
person
without
the
owner's
knowledge or connivance and that
he
had
taken
all
reasonable
precautions against such use of the
seized vehicle by the accused
person."

15. The law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bishwajit Dey (Supra) is very clear and
provides that in the matters of offences
punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985,
the vehicle involved for carrying the
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can
be confiscated only on conclusion of the
trial.
16. In the case at hand, it is
admitted between the parties that the trial
of the crime in question has yet not been
concluded therefore, the order whereby the
Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR783205 had been confiscated, on its face, is
illegal.

17. So far as the second issue
involved in this case that whether in a case
where an accused of a crime punishable
under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, who is owner
of the vehicle used in the crime, can claim
release of vehicle during the trial, is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its judgement rendered in the case of
Bishwajit Dey (Supra) had categorically
held that normally where the accused
himself is owner of the vehicle, the said
vehicle should not be released in his favour
but the trial court is free to consider and
decide the case of release of vehicle on its
own merits as there is no straight-jacket
formula. For ready reference, relevant
paragraphs of the judgement rendered in
the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) are
extracted as under:

"29. Though seizure of
drugs/substances from conveyances
can take place in a number of
situations, yet broadly speaking
there are four scenarios in which
the drug or substance is seized from
a conveyance. Firstly, where the
owner of the vehicle is the person
from whom the possession of
contraband
drugs/substance
is
recovered. Secondly, where the
contraband is recovered from the
possession of the agent of the
owner i.e. like driver or cleaner
hired by the owner. Thirdly, where
the vehicle has been stolen by the
accused
and
contraband
is
3 All. Baldhir Vs. State of U.P.
479
recovered from such stolen vehicle.
Fourthly, where the contraband is
seized / recovered from a thirdparty occupant (with or without
consideration)
of
the
vehicle
without any allegation by the police
that the contraband was stored and
transported in the vehicle with the
owner's
knowledge
and
connivance.
In
the
first
two
scenarios, the owner of the vehicle
and/or his agent would necessarily
be arrayed as an accused. In the
third and fourth scenario, the owner
of the vehicle and/or his agent
would not be arrayed as an
accused.
30. This Court is of the
view that criminal law has not to be
applied in a vacuum but to the facts
of each case. Consequently, it is
only in the first two scenarios that
the vehicle may not be released on
superdari till reverse burden of
proof is discharged by the accusedowner. However, in the third and
fourth
scenarios,
where
no
allegation has been made in the
charge-sheet against the owner
and/or his agent, the vehicle should
normally be released in the interim
on superdari subject to the owner
furnishing a bond that he would
produce the vehicle as and when
directed by the Court and/or he
would pay the value of the vehicle
as determined by the Court on the
date of the release, if the Court is
finally of the opinion that the
vehicle needs to be confiscated.

31. This Court clarifies that
the aforesaid discussion should not
be taken as laying down a rigid
formula as it will be open to the
trial Courts to take a different view,
if the facts of the case so warrant."

18. This Court finds that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgement
rendered
in
the
case
of
Bishwajit Dey (Supra) had categorized
various eventualities and had held that
normally where the accused himself is
owner of the vehicle used for carrying the
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance,
the trial court may not release the vehicle in
favour of the accused but at the same time,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
observed that the discussion made in the
judgement should not be taken as laying
down rigid formula and it will be open to
the trial court to take a different view if the
facts of the case so warrant. Thus, this
Court is of the view that even the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had categorically held that
it is for the trial court to decide the case of
release of vehicle, where owner of the
vehicle himself is accused of the crime
punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, on its
own merits.

19. This Court further finds that
the trial court while confiscating the Innova
Car bearing Registration No. HR78-3205
vide its order dated 20.06.2023 has not
considered the application filed by the
revisionist for release of the said vehicle on
its own merits therefore, the application
filed by the revisionist for release of the
vehicle is liable to be considered afresh by
the trial court after affording opportunity of
hearing to all the concerned parties.

20. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, this revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed
by
the
learned
Special
Judge
(N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur, relating
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to Case Crime No. 509 of 2021 under
Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, is
hereby set-aside.

21. The learned Special Judge
(N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur is directed
to reconsider the application filed by the
revisionist for release of vehicle i.e. Innova
Car bearing Registration No. HR78-3205
on its merits, strictly in accordance with the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra).
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 480
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6045 of 2024

Praveen Kumar Agarwal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Padmakar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

CRIMINAL LAW - Revisional Jurisdiction -
Conviction
under
Section
138
of
Negotiable
Instruments
Act,
1881
-
Dismissal
of
appeal
due
to
nonappearance - Maintainability of revision
without surrender - Rule 3(4), Chapter
XVIII, Part III of Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 - Mandatory requirement of
surrender before filing revision - No
application
seeking
exemption
from
surrender filed - Observed, requirement of
filing
surrender
certificate
not
inconsistent with Sections 397 and 401
CrPC - Convict has to either be in custody
or seek exemption based on exceptional
circumstances - Discretionary jurisdiction
under
revisional
powers
not
to
be
exercised in absence of compliance or
justification - However, liberty granted to
file fresh revision upon compliance with
rules- Held, revision not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 34)

HELD:
Section 397 Cr.P.C. and Section 401 Cr.P.C. do
not provide that the High Court would refuse to
entertain the criminal revision if the accused,
after his conviction and dismissal of his appeal,
has not surrendered before the court concerned.
However, it is noteworthy that the remedy in the
form of criminal revision is a discretionary
remedy and it is the discretion of the High Court
to entertain a criminal revision or to refuse to
entertain it. (Para 21)

Rule 3(4) of Chapter XVIII of Part III of the
Rules of 1952 provides that in a case in which
sentence of imprisonment has been awarded,
the application for revision shall also contain a
certificate signed by the Advocate for the
applicant or the applicant, stating therein that
the accused was not on bail or that, if he was
on bail, he has surrendered to it. Rule 2 of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952
further provides that where the Bench before
which a motion is made for the admission of a
petition of appeal or an application for revision
or other application finds that it is not
accompanied by the requisite papers, if any, or
is otherwise not in order or has not been
presented within time to it, may decline to
receive it or reject it or pass such other order as
it may consider fit. (Para 23)

From a bare perusal of the language used by
the rule making authority in Rule 3(4) of
Chapter XVIII of Part III of the Rules of 1952, it
is patently manifest that there is a mandatory
requirement that if a person had been convicted
and had been sentenced for imprisonment,
while filing application for revision, he shall file a
certificate along with the revision stating therein
that either he was not on bail or if he was on
bail, he had surrendered to it. The rule making
authority knowingly had used the words "shall
also contain a certificate" to make it crystal clear
that the revisionist to make his revision in order,