Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Saurabh Pandey vs Prakash Pant) Whereby on 28 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
Exemption Application No. 02 of 2025
Suspension of Sentence No. 3 of 2025
In
CRLR No. 35 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the
revisionist.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
3. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the
revisionist against the judgment and order dated
15.05.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur,
District – Champawat in Complaint Case No. 340 of
2022 (M/s Kapil Enterprises Vs. Prakash Pant) whereby
revisionist has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.
5,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
additional imprisonment of two months. Against the
judgment and order dated 15.05.2023 revisionist
preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023 before the
Session Judge, Champawat, who dismissed the appeal
by judgment and order dated 18.11.2024 and affirmed
the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur.
4. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist
along with exemption application praying for
exemption from surrender before the trial court. In
reference to this, learned counsel for the revisionist has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Vivek Rai Vs. High Court of Jharkhand
(2015) 12 SCC 86, which was also relied upon by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (MB) No.
84 of 2023 decided on 26.05.2023 wherein it has been
held that whenever revision is preferred under Section
401 Cr.P.C. and revisionist moves an application
seeking exemption from surrender, the requisite of his
providing the certificate of surrender would not be
insisted upon by the Registry, and the petition would
be entertained, and listed before the Court, for
consideration of the matter along with the exemption
application.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also filed
application for suspension of sentence.
6. On merits, he submits that the complaint
preferred under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, was time barred and for condonation
of delay, complainant has filed a medical certificate
dated 18.03.2017, which was, in fact a forged and
manufactured document, which is evident from the fact
that this certificate was issued on 18.03.2017 and as per
this certificate, patient who is complainant herein was
advised for rest from 18.03.2017 to 27.05.2017, which
highly improbable, as the certificate was issued much
prior to the date of discharge. He submits that since the
complaint was time barred and medical certificate
given by the complainant was forged one, as such,
entire proceeding drawn on a barred complaint
including conviction is bad in law.
7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the
revisionist submits that at the time of filing of the
appeal, revisionist has deposited 20% of the
compensation, awarded by the trial court.
8. As per office report, the revision is well within
time.
9. Admit.
10. Summon the trial court record.
11. Issue notice to the respondent no. 1.
12. Steps be taken within a week.
13. Exemption application no. 2 of 2025 is allowed.
14. As an interim measure, till the next date of
listing, effect and operation of the judgment and order
dated 15.05.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Tanakpur, District – Champawat in Complaint Case
No. 340 of 2022 and judgment and order dated
18.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023 by
the Session Judge, Champawat shall remain stayed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Vacation Judge.
28.01.2025
SKS
[ad_1]
Source link