Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umed Solanki vs Sandeep And Anr on 24 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.106 CRR No.543 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.03.2022
Umed Solanki .... Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
Present: Mr. S.K.Bishnoi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
SANT PARKASH, J. (ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 14.02.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby
appeal filed by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated
19.01.2019 passed by learned JMIC, Sirsa, has been dismissed for want of
prosecution.
It is submitted that vide judgment dated 19.01.2019, the present
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of
one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and further to pay compensation equal to
the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,75,000. Aggrieved against the said judgment of
conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by
passing the following order:-
"Intimation received from SHO regarding registration of
FIR No.109 of 2022 against appellant/convict Umed Solanki
who is proclaimed person in the present case. Warrant of
attachment issued against surety Balwinder Singh received
back unexecuted.
1 of 2
The present criminal appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution. However, attachment proceedings with respect to
personal bond of absconding accused and surety bond be
separated. Copy of this order along with Trial Court record be
sent to the concerned Court and present criminal appeal be
consigned to record room after retaining the copy of bail bond
along with previous attachment report and proceedings."
The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of deciding the
appeal on merits, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution, which is
against the basis canons of law.
The submission made on behalf of the petitioner considered.
The settled law is that the appeal can not be dismissed for want of
prosecution and the first Appellate Court ought to have decided the same on
merits.
Finding justification and legality in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition is allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 is hereby set aside and
the case is remanded back to learned Sessions Court to decide the same on
merit.
In the meanwhile, the remaining sentence of the petitioner is
ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal before first
Appellate Court, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction.
(SANT PARKASH)
JUDGE
24.03.2022
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
