Sunil Kumar Khemka vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3444 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2020
                                            ....

              Sunil Kumar Khemka                                  ....     Petitioner
                                            Versus
              The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                        .... Opposite Parties
                                            ....
              CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

              For the Petitioner               : Mr. V.K.Dubey, Adv.
              For the State                    : Mrs Vandana Bharti, APP.
              For the O.P. No.2                : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Adv.
                                ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

....

06/15.09.2021 I.A. No.4391 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition.

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, who has affirmed the order of sentence and conviction dated 24.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.1998 of 2017 (T.R. No.603 of 2019) for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with compensation amount of Rs.34,40,000/- (Thirty Four Lac and Forty Thousand) to the complainant within a month.

By referring to the explanation of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that friendly loan is not covered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and as such the entire prosecution is bad in law.

Considering the nature of transaction between the parties and the mandate of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of this petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.1998 of 2017 (T.R. No.603 of 2019).

I.A. No.4391 of 2021 stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2020 Admit.

Issue notice.

Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, accepts notice on behalf of O.P. No.2.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/