Jharkhand High Court
Rajan Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.936 of 2020
---
Rajan Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Yogendra Kumar Singh ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Aanya Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
06/07.09.2021: Admit.
Issue Notice.
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
of the opposite party no.2 and no notice need to be issued.
Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records from the
court concerned.
I.A. No.4484 of 2021
The present interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence of the petitioner
during pendency of the instant revision application.
The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section
138 of N.I. Act and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.8,00,000/- to the
opposite party no.2 as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
and in default thereof, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month, order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Ghatshila in Complaint Case No.103 of 2018 on 17.03.2020. Thereafter,
the petitioner has filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.58 of 2020 in
which the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur had
passed a judgment by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17.03.2020 vide order dated 11.12.2020.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist
referring to the explanation of section 138 of the N.I. Act that the
transaction between the parties does not constitute the legally
enforceable debt or liabilities. Since, it is not a legally enforceable debt
or liabilities, the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act itself is
illegal and it is not sustainable.
On the above facts, the prayer for suspension of sentence of
petitioner has been prayed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer for bail.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of transaction between the parties which is family
transaction, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the
petitioner and enlarge him on bail on his furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.58 of 2020 in connection with Complaint
Case No.103 of 2018, subject to the condition that the petitioner will
submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his
mobile number before the learned court below which he will always
keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without
prior permission of the court.
In the result, I.A. No.4484 of 2021 is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
