Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of U.P. & Another on 13 June, 2014
Bench: Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 248 of 2014
Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Sriavastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manish Jauhari,Mohit Jauhari
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for the complainant.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I.-3, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 323/2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2013, whereby the appeal no. 323 of 2013 filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and criminal appeal no. 289 of 2013 filed by the complainant opposite party has been partly allowed for enhancement of the compensation. Subject to enhancement of compensation rest part of the judgment and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by A.C.J. (J.D.) Room No. 36, Lucknow in case no. 429 of 2013, under Section N.I. Act, P.S. Alambagh, District Lucknow has been confirmed wherein the accused revisionist was convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act and punished by imprisonment of one year and compensation of Rs. 21 lacs.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law because the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submissions.
Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and material available on record, I am of the view that the reconsideration of the matter is required by this court in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
Admit.
Learned A.G.A. has put in appearance to represent the State and Sri Manish Jauhari has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, there is no need to issue notice.
List in the fourth week of September, 2014. In the meanwhile, lower court record be summoned within a period of six weeks from today through District Judge, Lucknow.
Order Date :- 13.6.2014
Monika
C.M. Application No. 53880 of 2014.
In Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 248 of 2014
Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Sriavastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manish Jauhari,Mohit Jauhari
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Manish Jauhari, counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law because the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was on bail during trial and he has not misused the bail. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has shop in M.P. Plaza, House No. 551 Jha/216, Hari Prasad Nagar, Ram Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the conduct of the accused applicant is not good and as per the impugned judgment, revisionist is under liability to pay a heavy amount of compensation Rs. 26 lacs. He has not complied the condition for depositing 33% of the compensation passed by the learned Appellate Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisionist is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let the applicant Mahesh Kumar Prajapati be released on bail under Section 138 N.I. Act, during the pendency of the revision on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
(ii) The applicant will fully co-operate in expeditious hearing of this appeal.
(iii) Within a period of thirty days from the date of release of the revisionist, he will take necessary steps for attachment of his shop in M.P. Plaza, House No. 551 Jha/216, Hari Prasad Nagar, Ram Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow as security for compliance of the impugned judgment and order, in case it is required to do so.
In case of violation of any condition of the above order, order for granting bail to the revisionist stands automatically vacated.
Order Date :- 13.6.2014/Monika
