Uttarakhand High Court
Laxman Singh Karki vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 329 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
Laxman Singh Karki ...... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to
the followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 02.02.2017,
passed in Criminal Case No.617 of 2012,
State Vs. Laxman Singh Karki, by the court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District- Nainital ("the Case"). By
it, the revisionist has been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 420, 467, 468 &
471 IPC, and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 02.06.2022,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2017,
Laxman Singh Karki Vs. State, by the court
of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani,
District Nainital. By it, the appeal has been
dismissed against the judgment and order
passed in the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The case is based on a FIR lodged by the
informant, according to which, in the absence of the
informant, his house was ransacked, cheque books etc.,
were taken and some amount was also withdrawn.
Suspicion was raised that it is the revisionist, who had
done it, because he had worked with the informant and
he had been conversant with the handwriting and
signature of the informant. In fact, the FIR records that
the revisionist used to practise the signature of the
informant. The cheques, in question, were forensically
examined. After examining the reports received from
forensic lab, the revisionist has been convicted and
sentenced, as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that there are gross illegalities in the impugned
judgment and order, according to him. The court had
relied on CCTV footages and forensic science reports,
but both are not proved. The forensic science report has
not been tendered in evidence; nobody has stated about
it; even the informant had not stated that the cheques
did not bear his signature; CCTV footages were not the
part of the evidence; there is no certificate under Section
65 B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, ("the Act").
5. Having heard, this Court is of the view that
this matter definitely requires deliberation.
6. Admit.
7. Learned State Counsel is ready to argue
this case on any date that may be fixed.
8. List this matter on 12.07.2022.
9. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022.
10. The challenge is made to the conviction
and sentence of the revisionist passed in Case Crime
No. 617 of 2012, State Vs. Laxman Singh Karki, in the
court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani,
Nainital, under Sections 454, 380, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC.
11. It is argued that the impugned judgments
have relied on Forensic Science Laboratory Report,
which has never been tendered in evidence; nobody has
stated about it; reliance has also been placed on CCTV
footages, but they could not have been read into
evidence because they were never made the part of the
evidence; there is no certificate under Section 65 B of
the Act.
12. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that it is a case fit for bail and the revisionist deserves to
be enlarged on bail.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. Let the revisionist be released on bail, on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the court concerned.
15. In this case, the appellate court had granted
bail after dismissing the appeal. The Court requests the
concerned Presiding Judge of the appellate court to let
this Court know as to under what provision of law, the
bail has been granted?
16. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the
learned Presiding Judge of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.07.2022
Ravi Bisht
