Uttarakhand High Court
Puran Kumar vs The State Of Uttarakhand And ... on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.37 of 2021
Puran Kumar ............... Revisionist
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand and another ... Respondent
Dated: 09.04.2021
Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Veer Kunwar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned B.H. for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal revision, preferred by the appellant
u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is
directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2019
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in
complaint case no.258 of 2018, "Harish Prasad Vs. Puran
Kumar", u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881,
whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist
and sentenced him six months' simple imprisonment along
with fine of Rs.1,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo one month's additional simple
imprisonment as well as judgment and order dated
06.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bageshwar in criminal appeal no.7 of 2020, "Puran Kumar
Vs. Harish Prasad & another", whereby the appellate Court
affirmed judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed by
the trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Harish
Prasad filed a criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 against the revisionist before the
Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar. The respondent appeared
as PW1 while revisionist appeared as DW1 and produced
Narendra Giri as DW2.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as
mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved
by it, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.7 of 2020,
"Puran Kumar Vs. Harish Prasad & another".
4. After hearing both the parties, the appellate
Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in
the judgment passed by the trial Court and, accordingly,
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by it, the present revision
has been preferred.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and
perused the entire evidence available on the record.
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly argued
that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on
evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned finding;
and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same
he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence
awarded to the revisionist by the trial court may be reduced
to some extent and he may be released on the sentence
already served by him.
7. From the record, it is clear that the revisionist
has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment while
he has already served more than five months' sentence.
8. After considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it
would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the
revisionist to five months' S.I. instead of six months' S.I., as
awarded by the trial Court.
9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the
revision preferred by the revisionist is partly allowed with
the following directions: -
A. The conviction part of the revisionist, as awarded by
the Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is
maintained.
B. The revisionist is sentenced to five months' S.I.
instead of six months' S.I. u/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881.
C. The fine as imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed
by the appellate Court will remain unchanged. The
revisionist shall deposit the fine, which shall be a condition
precedent for their release.
10. The revisionist shall now undergo the sentence,
as modified by this Court. However, the period already
undergone by him shall be adjusted from the records as per
rules.
11. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the
record of this case along with a copy of this judgment for
onwards compliance.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
09.04.2021
Sukhbant
