Gyaneshwar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 733 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 135 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Gyaneshwar Srivastava
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sangeeta,Balram Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Balram Yadava,Mratunjay Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged impugned order dated 20.03.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21, Raebareli in Complaint Case No. 352 of 2010, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli and judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012.

Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the dispute relates to the amount of money between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2. It is further alleged that when the money of opposite party no. 2 was not returned by the revisionist, a complaint case was registered by opposite party no. 2 vide complaint case no. 352 of 2010 for return of money. In the complaint case the revisionist admitted his liability and it was ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate court that the revisionist shall pay his liability.By the impugned order dated 20.03.2012, the revisionist was convicted for three months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30,000/-. Out of Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 28,400/- was to be given to opposite party no. 2.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate concerned, the revisionist filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Raebareli that too was also dismissed.

Being aggrieved with both the aforesaid orders, this instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist.

Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that the revisionist had admitted his liability and as per order of trial court, he deposited Rs.30,000/- before the court concerned. Several other arguments were raised by learned counsel for revisionist to show the innocence of revisionist.

Lastly learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that entire amount i.e., Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited by the revisionist before the trial court and three months imprisonment had been suspended during the pendency of the revision. It is further submitted that sentence period already undergone may be converted by enhancement of fine.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the sentence period already undergone by the revisionist is converted by enhancement of adequate fine.

In view of the above, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the conviction is confirmed and the sentence of the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced and the same shall be deposited by the revisionist within seven days from today. Rs. 28400/- and Rs. 10,000/- shall be released by the trial court in favaour of opposite party no. 2 within fifteen days from the date of deposition of fine.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned forthwith.

It is made clear that this order shall not be any impediment in the service of the revisionist.

Order Date :- 9.1.2023

Virendra