JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J. In the considered opinion of this Court I.A. No.17672/2025, which is an application for exemption from surrender filed in this revision is to be considered first and accordingly arguments are heard on that application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the present applicant is not in a position to appear before the Court and to surrender himself before the Court as he is suffering from server ailments and therefore, he has been admitted in hospital in respect of which medical documents have been filed along with the present application i.e. I.A. No.17672/2025 including MRI report and prescriptions. Certain latest medical documents have also been filed along with I.A. No.5203/2025 which pertain to treatment availed by the present revisionist. Looking to these documents, it is apparent that the present revisionist is bedridden and is unable to appear and surrender before the Court. It is also submitted that the decision in the case of Vivek Rai and Another v. High Court of Jharkhand, (2015) 12 SCC 86 has been considered in later case of Daulat Singh v. State of MP, SLP (Criminal) No.20900/2024 wherein disagreement has been shown by Hon'ble the Apex Court, however the case was not referred to a Larger Bench. Therefore, in the light of decision in the case of Union Territory of Laddakh and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another, SLP (Civil) No.18727/2023 which has been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Mohaniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No.2714/2024 decided on 09.07.2025), the ratio laid down in case of Vivek Rai (Supra) is binding and according to which surrender is not necessary for maintaining a criminal revision and exemption from surrender can be granted to the revisionist on the cogent grounds which are available in this case. 3. Per contra, Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submits that in the case of Daulat Singh (supra), the Apex Court particularly in the light of Rule 48 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008, has held that surrender is necessary for maintaining a criminal revision and, therefore, revisionist has to surrender first before the trial Court for entertaining this revision petition. It is further submitted that the documents filed along with this application for exemption from surrender as well as other documents though reveals that the present revisionist is suffering from pain in L-3, L-4 and L-5 Vertebrae but the same do not show that the revisionist is not in a position to move and to appear before the trial Court to surrender himself. The prescription/certificate dated 02.04.2025 has been issued by Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi who is a 'General and Gastrointestinal Surgeon' and not an expert to provide treatment for the disease from which the present revisionist is suffering from. Thus, it is submitted that documents submitted by the revisionist qua his treatment are not reliable at this stage. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that respondent has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal for preserving CCTV recordings of the Appellate Court Room of dated 07.07.2025 when the judgment of this case was pronounced by the Appellate Court because on that day the present revisionist was present before the Appellate Court and he took part in the Court proceedings. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order on the said application for preserving the CCTV Footages of that day. Therefore, the order passed by learned CJM itself indicates that the present revisionist does not suffer from any severe disease or complications which prevents him from appearing and surrendering before the Court. On these grounds, it is submitted that the application for exemption from surrender deserves to be rejected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court relied upon by the counsel as well as the documents available on record. 5. Rule 48 of Chapter 10 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 reads as follows: "48. A memorandum of appeal or revision petition against conviction, except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below, shall contain a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction. Where the sentence has been so suspended, the factum of such suspension and its period shall be stated in the memorandum of appeal or revision petition, as also in the application under section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023. Where the sentence has been so suspended, the factum of such suspension and its period shall be stated in the memorandum of appeal or revision petition, as also in the application under section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023. An application under Section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023 shall, as far as possible, be in Format No.11 and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant/applicant or some other person acquainted with the facts of the case." 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek Rai and Another v. High Court of Jharkhand was passed in relation to the Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. Para 6, 10 and 11 of the judgment are germane, which are as under: "6. 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 dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in the 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 the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of CrPC relied upon by the petitioners. 10. Only further submission put forward is that inherent 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 the Supreme Court Rules prohibition against listing without surrender is not applicable if the Court otherwise directs. Such exception is not to be found in the impugned Rule. 11. 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 prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission applies even to a situation where on an application of the 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. It cannot thus, be argued that prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission applies even to a situation where on an application of the 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 the corresponding Supreme Court Rules that if the Court grants exemption from 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." 7. Recently, in the case of Daulat Singh vs. State of M.P., Hon'ble the Apex Court has considered the dictum in case of Vivek Rai (Supra) and has observed as follows: "6. Bare perusal of the first part of Rule 48 would leave none in doubt that the same casts an obligation on the revisionist, in case he has to serve a sentence upon being convicted and the revision filed by him challenges the conviction and sentence, to surrender and disclose such fact in the revision petition. In other words, what such provision implies is that for a revision to be entertained by the High Court at the instance of a convict who has not otherwise obtained an order of suspension of sentence, to surrender in terms of the order(s) of the competent court(s) that tried him and dismissed his appeal." 8. While discussing the law laid down in Vivek Rai (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Daulat Singh (Supra), has observed as under: "9. Vivek Rai (supra) is a decision rendered on a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, wherein Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 20014 was impeached as constitutionally invalid. Such rule was noted in paragraph 2 of the decision. Though not similarly worded, Rule 159 of the 2001 Rules bears resemblance with Rule 48 of the 2008 Rules and while seeking to demand the same requirement is intended to achieve the same purpose as Rule 48. 10. Such rule was noted in paragraph 2 of the decision. Though not similarly worded, Rule 159 of the 2001 Rules bears resemblance with Rule 48 of the 2008 Rules and while seeking to demand the same requirement is intended to achieve the same purpose as Rule 48. 10. A reading of paragraph 11 of the decision in Vivek Rai (supra), which according to learned counsel contains the ratio of the judgment, reveals a concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Jharkhand that Rule 159 of the 2001 Rules does not affect the inherent power of the high court to exempt the requirement of surrender in exceptional situations. This was followed by the observation: “It cannot thus, be argued that prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission applies even to a situation where on an application of the 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.” 11. If indeed such observation has to be construed as a proposition of law having been laid down by this Court that a high court in exercise of its inherent powers may, in exceptional cases, exempt the requirement of surrender, as learned counsel would wish us to construe, we find such proposition to be debatable. Inherent powers of a high court saved by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedures are to be exercised to make such orders as may be 4 2001 Rules, hereafter 5 Code, hereafter necessary to give effect to any order under the Code (emphasis supplied by us) or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 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." 9. As a consequence, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Daulat Singh (Supra) from para 12 to 16 has held as under: "12. Significantly, the legislature having thought it fit to introduce a provision enabling a convict to seek benefit of suspension of sentence pending an appeal did so by enacting Section 389 of the Code. The Code has no provision permitting an application to seek exemption from surrender. We are minded to hold 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. 13. We also find that there are specific provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, 20136 providing for an application for exemption from surrendering to be made, but similar such provision is not otherwise available in the 2008 Rules framed by the High Court. 14. It is a cardinal principle that while gathering the 6 Order XX Rule 3 and Order XXII Rule 5 legislative intent, attention has to be paid to what has been said as well as what has not been said. 15. 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. 16. 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." 10. On perusal of the judgment of Daulat Singh (Supra), it reveals that in light of Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, specifically Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that as per the provisions of said Rule, a revisionist is required to be surrendered before the Court which is necessary for entertaining the criminal revision before the High Court. Though it differs from the law laid down in the case of Vivek Rai (Supra) but not made a reference to the Larger Bench. In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and other vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749, it has held in para 35 as under: "35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. in this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it." 11. Here in this case, the interpretation of Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 is in question. 12. The case of Vivek Rai (Supra) is based on Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 but the case of Daulat Singh (Supra) is based particularly in relation to the Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008. Moreover, in case of Daulat Singh (Supra), the dictum in case of Vivek Rai (Supra) has been discussed in detail and disagreement with the law laid down in the case of Vivek Rai (Supra) has been expressed. Moreover, in case of Daulat Singh (Supra), the dictum in case of Vivek Rai (Supra) has been discussed in detail and disagreement with the law laid down in the case of Vivek Rai (Supra) has been expressed. So far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned, the same is based specifically on the Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, as such the case of Daulat Singh (Supra) is definitely having more relevancy in this case. 13. For the sake of arguments keeping in view of the observation made by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Dinesh Mohaniya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, if the law laid down in the case of Vivek Rai (Supra) is found to be binding on the Court even though this Court is not inclined to allow the application for granting exemption from surrender because there is no certificate on record of any medical expert or any hospital that the present revisionist is unable to move and also unable to appear before the Court for surrender. What revealed from these documents is that the present revisionist is suffering from mild flaval hypertrophy in L-3, L-4 and L-5 but it is not mentioned that the present revisionist is bedridden and unable to move. In this regard, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent seems impressive which is further supported by the application filed on his behalf before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal on 22.07.2025 and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on this application dated 04.08.2025. 14. Ex consequentia, the application filed on behalf of revisionist i.e., I.A. No.17672/2025 is hereby dismissed and revisionist is directed to surrender before the trial Court and to obtain a certificate for such surrender, else this revision petition in light of Rule 48 of Rules, 2008 being not maintainable shall be dismissed at the threshold. 15. The case be listed in the week commencing 08.09.2025.