Uttarakhand High Court
Hon’Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No.359 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Ms. Manju Bahuguna and Mr. D.N.
Sharma, learned counsel for revisionist.
2. This criminal revision is directed
against the judgment and order dated
23.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District
Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.293 of
2023 Akram Vs. Dinesh Kumar, whereby,
the revisionist was convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and sentenced for three months’
simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2,10,000/-, out of which, Rs.2,00,000/-
was directed to be paid to the respondent
as compensation, with default stipulation
of one month’s additional simple
imprisonment; as well as the impugned
judgment and order dated 26.05.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.17
of 2024 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Akram and
antoher, whereby, the appeal preferred by
the revisionist was dismissed and
judgment and order convicting and
sentencing the revisionist was affirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court as well
as by the learned Appellate Court suffers
from manifest illegality of facts and law,
therefore, the revision deserves to admit.
4. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the
complaint filed by the respondent-
complainant was not within time and it has
been filed after a limitation of the filing of
complaint after receipt of the notice, not in
consonance with the provisions of Section
138(c) read with 142 (b) of the N.I. Act.
5. Having perused both the judgments
and orders impugned, this Court find
substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist.
6. Admit.
7. Issue notice to respondent, returnable
within four weeks.
8. Steps to be taken within a week.
9. Let Trial Court Record be summoned.
10. Put up on 06.11.2025.
Bail Application (IA/2/2025)
11. Learned counsel for revisionists/
applicants would press the bail application
(IA/2/2025) in the instant revision.
12. It is contended by learned counsel for
the revisionists/applicants that revisionist
has surrendered on 06.08.2025 and in
order to prove this fact, photocopy of
question-answer is produced before this
Court, which is taken on record. They
further submit that the revisionist was on
bail throughout the trial as well as during
the pendency of appeal and he never
misused the bail granted to him.
13. It is further contended by them that
2
the sentence inflicted upon the revisionist/
applicant by the learned Trial Court is only
of three months, and therefore, it would
be in the fitment of the facts and situation
that the revisionist may be released on
bail during pendency of the present
criminal revision.
14. Having considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant, this Court is of the
view that in view of the facts and
circumstances stated hereinabove, during
pendency of the present criminal revision,
the revisionist-applicant is entitled to be
released on bail.
15. Accordingly, the bail application (IA/2/
2025) is allowed. Let the revisionist/
applicant-Dinesh Kumar, be released on
bail, on his executing personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
like amount, to the satisfaction of
Magistrate concerned.
16. During the pendency of the present
criminal revision, 50% of realisation of
compensation and sentence, as imposed
by the learned trial court against the
revisionist, shall also remain stayed.
17. Accordingly, exemption application
(IA/1/2025) stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
PN
3
[ad_1]
Source link