VIVEK RAI & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.

                             [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1014

    A                          VIVEK RAI & ANR.
                                         v.
         HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR
                            GENERAL & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.61 of 2012)
    B
                             FEBRAURY 04, 2015
            [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

             High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 - r. 159 - r. 159
    C   requiring the accused to surrender to the custody of the court
        before filing revision petition - Constitutional validity of - Held:
        Rule does not suffer from any infirmity - The general practice
        is that a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after
        an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken
    D   into custody in Court itself - Object of the Rule is to ensure
        that a person who has been convicted by two courts obeys the
        law and does not abscond - Provision cannot thus, be held
        to be arbitrary in any manner - Provision is to regulate the
        procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict
.   E   with the substantive provisions of the Cr. P. C. - Similar
        provision exists in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Rule
        does not affect the inherent power of the High Court to exempt
        the requirement of surrender in exceptional situations -
        Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 21, 32 - Code of
    F   Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 397, 401..               /

          Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastav vs. High Court ~rJharkhand
      2004 Crl.L.J.4392; Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan vs.
      C.B./. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 48:2006 (5) sec 752; K.M.
      Nanavti vs. State of Bombay (1961) 1 SCR 497 - referred
    G to.

                               Case Law Reference :
             2004 Crl.L.J.4392                Referred to     Para 3

    H                                  1014
    VIVEK RAI & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND               1015
              THROUGH REGISTRAR GEN.

    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 48 Referred to               Para 3, 6       A
    (1961) 1 SCR 497             Referred to         Para 4
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 61 of 2012.
                                                                     B
    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

    M. R. Calla, Siddharth Luthra, Rohan Thawani, Pooja
Dheer, Prgati Neekhra, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Pratiksha
Sharma, Ankit Acharya, Nanita Sharma, Arijit Hazumdan,
Abhinav Mukherjee for the Appearing Parties.                         C

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This writ petition has
been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking     0
to declare Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules,
2001 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and
provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). The rule in question is as follows:

    "In the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of           E
    the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of
    conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner
    shall state whether the petition shall be accompanied by
    a certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not
    surrendered the petition shall be accompanied by an              F
    application seeking leave to surrender within a specified
    period. On sufficient cause if shown, the Bench may
    grant such time and on such conditions as it thinks and
    proper. No such revision shall be posted for admission
    unless the petitioner has surrendered to custody in the          G
    concerned Court."

     2. Case of the petitioners is that they have been convicted
and sentenced under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
("IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
                                                                     H
    1016     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A Against the said conviction and sentence, their appeal has
  been dismissed and revision petition was filed before the High
  Court but the same was not registered on account of impugned
  Rule 159 as they failed to surrender to custody. It is submitted
  that this Rule is in conflict with the provisions of Criminal
B Procedure Code dealing with the statutory revisional
  jurisdiction of the High Court and even in a fit case, the High
  Court cannot consider the revision petition and grant bail unless
  a convicted person covered by the Rules surrenders to custody.
  The Rule being subordinate legislation could not militate against
C the substantive statutory provision. Since the Division Bench
  of the High Court has upheld the validity of the Rule and the
  special leave petition was dismissed by this Court against the
  said judgment, the petitioners have no other remedy except to
  approach this Court under Article 32 as their fundamental rights
D under Articles 14 and 21 are affected.

       3. A counter affid~vit has been filed by the Registrar
  General of the High Court of Jharkhand opposing the prayer
  for declaring the Rule to be ultra vires. Reliance has been
  placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
E in Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastav vs .. High Court of Jharkhand
  laying down that the Rule could not be held to be arbitrary,
  discriminatory or illegal. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4890
  of 2004 filed against the said judgment was dismissed by this
  Court. It has also been stated that there is an identical provision
F in Order XXI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and
  thus such a provision cannot be held to be arbitrary nor such a
  provision, in any manner, be held to be inconsistent with Section
  389 read with Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The High Court
  is competent to frame Rules to regulate its procedure. Reliance
G has also been placed on a Judgment of this Court in Mayuram
  Subramanian Srinivasan vs. C.B.I. laying down that a
  convicted person is required to surrender under Rule 6 of Order
  XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, unless the Court directs
  otherwise.
H
   VIVEK RAI & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND  1017
 THROUGH REGISTRAR GEN. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    3. We have given due consideration to the rival                 A
submissions.

     4. We do not find any merit in the challenge to the validity
of the Rule. It is well known practice that generally a revision
against conviction and sentence is filed after an appeal is         8
dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in
Court itself. The object of the Rule is to ensure that a person
who has been convicted by two courts obeys the law and does
not abscond. The provision cannot thus be held to be arbitrary
in any manner. The provision is to regulate the procedure of        C
the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the
substantive provisions of the Cr.P.C. relied upon by the
petitioners. A similar provision exists in the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966. In K.M. Nanavti vs. State of Bombay this Court
considered the scope and effect of identical provision of Order
XX.I Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, then applicable, which      D
read as follows :

    "When the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment, the petition shall state whether the
    petitioner has surrendered. Unless the court otherwise          E
    orders, the petition shall not be posted for hearing until
    the petitioner has surrendered to his sentence".

       5. It was observed that the Rule only crystalised the pre-
existing practice of this Court and the High Courts. Further,
question considered was whether the Rule violated Article 161
                                                                    F
which conferred power on Governor to suspend the sentence
as in that case, the Governor had suspended the sentence but
still the convict was required under the Rule to surrender. This
Court held that power of the Governor could not regulate
procedure of the Court and if the case was to be heard by this      G
Court, unless this Court granted exemption, the Rule prevailed.
We are not concerned with the said question in the present
case. Relevant observations in the said judgment are :

     " ........ This Rule was, in terms, introduced into the        H
     1018   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 1 $.C.R.


A       Supreme Court Rules last year and it only crystallized
        the preexisting practice of this court, which is a/so the
        practice in the High Courts. That practice is based on the
        very sound principle which was recognised long ago by.
        the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature, North
B       Western Provinces, in 1870, in the case of The Queen
        v. Bisheshar Pershad [Vol. 2 NWP High Court Reports,
        p. 441]. In that case no order of conviction had been
        passed. Only a warrant had been issued against the
        accused and as the war rant had been returned unserved
c       a proclamation had been issued and attachment of the
        property of the accused had been ordered, with a view to .
        compelling him to surrender. The validity of the warrant
        had been challenged before the High Court. The High
        Court refused to entertain his petition until he had
        surrendered because he was deemed to be in contempt
 D
        of a lawfully constituted authority. The accused person in
        pursuance of the order of the High Court surrendered
        and after he had surrendered, the matter was dealt with
        by the High Court on its merits. But as observed above
        the Rules framed under Article 145 are only in aid of the
 E      powers of this court under Article 142 and the main
        question that falls for consideration is, whether the order
        of suspension passed by the Governor under Article 161
        could operate when this court had been moved for
        granting special leave to appeal from the judgment and
·F      order of the High Court. As soon as the petitioner put in
        a petition for special leave to appeal the matter became
        sub judice in this court. This court under its Rules could
        insist upon the petitioner surrendering to his sentence as
        a condition precedent to his being heard by this court,
 G      though this court could dispense with and in a proper
        case could exempt him from the operation of that Rule.
        It is not disputed that this court has the power to stay the
        execution of the sentence and to grant bail pending the
        disposal of the application for special leave to appeal.
 H      Rule 28 of Order 21 of the Rules does not cover that
   VlVEK RAI & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND  1019
 THROUGH REGISTRAR GEN. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    period, but even so the power of the court under Article        A
     142 of the Constitution to make such order as is
    necessary for doing complete justice in this case was not
    disputed and it would be open to this court even while an
    application for special leave is pending to grant bail
     under the powers it has under Article 142 to pass any          8
     order in any matter which is necessary for doing complete
    justice."

     6. Again in Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan (supra),
validity and effect of identical Rules i.e. Rules 6 and 13-A of
Order XXI of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was considered. It           C
was observed :

    "7. Order 21 relates to special leave petitions in criminal
    proceedings and criminal appeals. So far as special
    leav'3 petitions are concerned, Rule 6 application thereto      o
    is in almost identical language as that of Rule 13-A. In
    both cases it is stipulated that unless the petitioner or the
    appellant as the case may be has surrendered to the
    sentence, the petition/the appeal shall not be registered
    and cannot be posted for hearing unless the Court on            E
    written application for the purpose, orders to the contrary.
    In both cases it is stated that where the petition/appeal
    is accompanied by such an application that application
    alone shall be posted for hearing before the Court for
    orders. Therefore, the position is crystal clear that the       F
    criminal appeal cannot be posted unless proof of
    surrender has been furnished by the appellant who has
    been convicted. It appears from the various orders which
    have been filed by learned counsel for the appellant, the
     effect of Order 21 Rule 13-A has not been dealt with. It
    may be that the provision was not brought to the notice         G
    of the Bench. The requirements of Order 21 Rule 13-A
     are mandatory in character and have to be complied with
     except when an order is passed for exemption from
    surrendering."
                                                                    H
    1020     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 1 S.C.R.


A       7.ln concurring judgment, it was observed :

        "16. It has been submitted that the statutory provisions
        of Section 389(3) CrPC have an overriding effect over
        the Supreme Court Rules and hence once bail has been
        granted to a convicted person by the trial court, this Court
B       cannot insist that he should surrender to the sentence in
        terms of Rule 13-A before his appeal can be registered.

        17. While such a submission is attractive, it does not
        stand scrutiny for the simple reason that sub-section (3)
c       of Section 389 CrPC empowers the trial court to release
        a convicted person on bail for such period as will afford
        him sufficient time to present an appeal and obtain orders
        of the appellate court under sub-section (1), namely,
        release on bail, and it is only for such period that the
D       sentence of imprisonment shall be deemed to be
        suspended.

        18. The basic fallacy of Ms Jaiswal's submission is that
        it overlooks the question that grant of bail in the appeal
        presupposes surrender by the convicted person.
E
        19. The provisions of Section 389 CrPC and that of the
        Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are independent provisions
        and will have to be considered on their own standing."

F      8. Only further submission put forward is that inhereDt
  power of the Court to direct listing of the case by exempting
  the requirement of surrender has been taken away. It is pointed
  out that even in Supreme Court Rules prohibition against listing      ~
  without surrender is not applicable if the Court otherwise directs.
G Such exception is not to be found in the impugned Rule.

       9. It has not been disputed even by the learned counsel
  for the High Court that the Rule does not affect the inherent
  power of the High Court to exempt the requirement of surrender
  in exceptional situations. It cannot thus, be argued that
H prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission
   VIVEK RAI & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND  1021
 THROUGH REGISTRAR GEN. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)

applies even to a situation where on an application of the            A
petitioner, on a case being made out, the Court, in exercise of
its inherent power, considers it appropriate to grant exemption
from surrender having regard to the nature and circumstances
of a case. Thus, the exception as found in corresponding
Supreme Court Rules that if the Court grants exemption from           B
surrender and directs listing of a case, the Rule cannot stand
in the way of the Court's exercise of such jurisdiction, has to
be assumed in the impugned Rule.

      10. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to
hold that the impugned Rule suffers from any infirmity. The writ      C
petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Nidhi Jain                                 Writ Petition dismissed.