Amar Singh vs Chaturbhuj Morya
2021 Latest Caselaw 2255 MP

   1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               Criminal Revision No.4175/2019
             Amar Singh Vs. Chaturbhuj Mourya

              Heard Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated:10/06/2021

       Shri Pawan Kumar, Advocate for applicant.

       Shri Hemant Singh Rana, Advocate for respondent.

This revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the judgment and sentence dated 6/7/2019 passed by XIVth

Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal

No.378/2018, thereby affirming the judgment and sentence passed by

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior on 29/8/2018 in Criminal

Case No.707/2017, by which the applicant was convicted under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instead of

awarding jail sentence, the applicant was directed to pay

compensation to the tune of Rs.5,27,275/- within a period of one

month, failing which the applicant was liable to undergo simple

imprisonment of two months.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that after the

applicant was convicted by the trial court by judgment and sentence

dated 29/8/2018, he preferred an appeal in which there was a stay,

however, the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 6/7/2019

passed in Criminal Appeal No.378/2018. It is further submitted that

against the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant has preferred the

present revision and by order dated 28/8/2019 the applicant was

granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.4175/2019 Amar Singh Vs. Chaturbhuj Mourya

with a solvent surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

trial court.

IA No.1896/2020 has been filed for grant of 10 days time to

comply the order dated 28/8/2019. It is mentioned in the application

that since the applicant could not make arrangements for the surety,

therefore, the bail was not furnished. This application was filed on

19/2/2020.

Considered the application for extension of time.

The reasons assigned by the applicant for not furnishing bail

cannot be accepted. The applicant was never granted bail on the

condition of one surety of like amount. On the contrary the applicant

was released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety bond. It was for the applicant to

obtain a solvent surety bond from the competent authority and

furnish the bail. There is nothing in the application that the applicant

ever made any attempt to obtain the solvent surety bond from the

competent authority. On the contrary he has filed an application for

extension of time on the ground that he could not arrange the surety.

Furthermore, by application dated 19/2/2020 the applicant had sought

for 10 days time to furnish the bail. It is submitted by the counsel for

the applicant that because of lock-down he could not furnish bail.

The said submission is also liable to be rejected, because if the 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.4175/2019 Amar Singh Vs. Chaturbhuj Mourya

applicant was of the view that within 10 days from 19/2/2020 he can

furnish bail, then he could have done that without seeking further

direction. On the contrary, it appears that the applicant was directed

to appear before the Registry of this Court on 4/11/2019 and on all

subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, however, it appears

that the applicant never appeared before the Registry of this Court as

directed by order dated 28/8/2019. Accordingly, on 11/2/2020 this

Court directed the Registry to submit its report in regard to personal

appearance of the petitioner before the Registry on 4/11/2019. In

order to get over the order dated 11/2/2020 the applicant preferred an

application on 19/2/2020 seeking extension of time for furnishing

bail. Further, it has been fairly conceded by the counsel for the

applicant that out of total compensation amount of Rs.5,27,275/- the

applicant has merely deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/-. It is further

submitted that in absence of any stay on payment of compensation

amount, the applicant is required to undergo the default

imprisonment of two months. Undisputedly, the applicant has not

surrendered before the trial court to undergo the default

imprisonment. Neither the applicant has furnished bail nor he has

surrendered nor he has deposited the compensation amount. Under

these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in

the light of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.4175/2019 Amar Singh Vs. Chaturbhuj Mourya

Court in the case of Deepak Sahu Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012

(3) MPLJ 534, the present revision is not maintainable. It is,

accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.

The trial court is given liberty to issue warrants of arrest for

undergoing default imprisonment as well as to start necessary

proceedings for recovery of Rs.5,27,275/-.

Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial court

for information and immediate compliance.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun*

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.06.11 10:45:32 +05'30'