Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Faiz Packaging Solutions Through ... vs M/S Harihar Marketing Through ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-1230-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 1230 of 2025
(M/S FAIZ PACKAGING SOLUTIONS THROUGH FAIZ MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS Vs M/S
HARIHAR MARKETING THROUGH PROPRIETOR SUBHASH )
Dated : 07-04-2025
Shri Nitin Singh Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Shri Madhusudan Yadav, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
I.A. No.4921/2025 is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner to
take document on record.
Considered. The same is allowed.
The document is taken on record.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision being arguable, admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee by registered
AD within seven working days, made returnable within three weeks.
Heard on I.A. No.4050 of 2025, which is the first application under
Section 442 of BNSS 2023/ 397 of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner - Faiz Mohammad
Siddiqui.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2025, passed by II
Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.158/2022
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
2 CRR-1230-2025
24.08.2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain(M.P.) in
Criminal Case No.437/2017 whereby revision petitioner has been convicted
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1 year with compensation of Rs.6,09,707/- with default
stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that six cheques were issued on the same date. The
complainant had failed to explain why single cheque was not issued against
outstanding liability. There was commercial dispute between the parties. The
complainant had failed to prove existence of legally recoverable liability
against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had
earlier deposited 20% of the cheque amount before the first Appellate Court.
Recently, he deposited further 30% on 05.04.2025 to show his bonafide.
Learned Counsel further contends that the learned Appellate Court did not
properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. There is no likelihood
of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision
petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
3 CRR-1230-2025
application and prays for its rejection.
The contentions of revision petitioner has prima facie substance which
deserve consideration on merit. The petitioner is undergoing sentence of
imprisonment since date of judgment i.e. 06.03.2025. There is no likelihood
of early hearing of revision in near future. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits
of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed.
It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence
o f revision petitioner - Faiz Mohammad Siddiqui shall remain suspended
during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction
of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
25.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation
on his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being
shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules,
2008].
4 CRR-1230-2025
Where the revision petitioner does not appear on the date of his
appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance
is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC/491 of
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his surety without any
reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting
bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4050/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
