Nazia Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1295 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2328 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Nazia Khan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi,Mohammad Aon
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

The revisionist is convicted under section 138 N.I. Act by order dated 31.3.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer Additional Court, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 1762 of 2017, whereby the court below has convicted the revisionist under section 138 N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 65,000/- along with default stipulation. The revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2021 challenging the conviction and sentence. However, the appellate court found no merit in the various contentions raised by the revisionist accused herein and ultimately confirmed the conviction vide order dated 6.5.2022 passed by learned Session Judge, Aligarh in Appeal No. 56 of 2021. This revision petition is directed against the judgement in the said Criminal Appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist accused and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Obviously, conviction under section 138 of N.I. Act was concurrently entered against the revisionist based on the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence before the court below. In a case of concurrent conviction to interfere with the same in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the revisionist has to establish that the courts below appreciated the evidence in an utterly perverse manner of that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are totally against the weight of the evidence.

Having herd the learned counsel and perusing the judgements I have no hesitation to hold that the revisionist has failed to make out any ground whatsoever so as to compel this Court to interfere with the conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Having perused the judgements of the courts below I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction entered against the revisionist under Section 138 of N.I. Act concurrently by the courts below. Hence, the conviction is confirmed.

So for as the question of sentence imposed by the trial court on the revisionist is concerned learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is ready to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (5) SCC 663.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that in case the revisionist appears before the Court below within a period of one week from today and move an appropriate application to compromise the matter, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) within a further period of one week after hearing opposite party no.2.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of.

For a period of fifteen days no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

Order Date :- 12.1.2023

A.