Uttarakhand High Court
Mehboob vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 281 of 2022
Mehboob ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. with Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.2
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) The judgment and order dated
06.09.2021, passed in Criminal
Complaint Case No. 6380 of 2017,
Faiyaaz Ahmad Vs. Mehboob, by
the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act")
and sentenced to three months
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
11,50,000/-. It has also been
directed that out of the fine
imposed, Rs.11,40000/- shall be
paid to the respondent no.2 ("the
Complainant"): and
(ii) The judgment and order dated
30.05.2022, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 192 of 2021, Mehboob
Vs. Faiyaaz Ahmad and another, by
the court of 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar. By it, judgment and
order passed in the case has been
confirmed.
2. The revisionist and the complainant have filed a
joint Compounding Application No. 1 of 2022 alongwith the
affidavits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
4. On 13.06.2022, this Court had directed the
revisionist to deposit 15% of the amount as required to be
deposited in such cases, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H.,(2010) 5 SCC 66.
5. The amount of cheques involved is Rs. 11 Lakh.
Office has reported that Rs.1,65,000/- has already been
deposited.
6. The revisionist is present in person before this
Court duly identified by his counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar and
the complainant is also present in person before this Court
duly identified by his counsel Mr. Pranav Singh. They have
admitted the compromise between them.
7. Since the revisionist and the complainant have
settled the dispute, the offence under Section 138 of the Act
gets compounded. Consequently, the revisionist is entitled to
acquittal.
8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
9. The impugned judgments and orders are set
aside.
10. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under
Section 138 of the Act.
11. The revisionist is present before the Court.
Though his conviction was upheld on 30.05.2022 and he was
directed to surrender before the Court. He did not surrender.
The surrender certificate is not in the record. Registry has
not notified these defects.
12. The revisionist did not reveal it anywhere. It has
been brought to the notice of the Court today.
13. The learned Registrar General is requested to
examine these issues as to whether in such cases, the
custody certificate is required as per Rules? How revision of a
convict has been listed without notifying the fact that despite
order of the appellate court, the revisionist did not
surrender? Why the defect was not notified? Who is at fault?
Why such officials/officers shall not be departmentally
proceeded with?
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.07.2022
Jitendra
