Chandra Kumar Sabharwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 310 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Criminal Revision No. 735 of 2022
                              With
               Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2022


Chandra Kumar Sabharwal                          ...... Revisionist

                               Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                ..... Respondents


Mr. J. C. Karnatak, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. C Petshali,
Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 29.05.2017,

passed in Criminal Complaint Case

No.6461 of 2013, Sanjeev Sabharwal Vs.

Chandra Kumar Sabharwal, by the court

of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

District Dehradun ("the case"). By it, the

revisionist has been convicted & sentenced

under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act").

(ii) Judgment and order dated

13.10.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal

No.77 of 2017, Chandra Kumar Sabharwal

Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, by

the court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge,

Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order

dated 29.05.2017, passed in the case, has

been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. This matter was heard on 12.01.2023,

when this Court had summoned LCR, so as to

appreciate the arguments on admission.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist

submits that the revisionist has falsely been implicated;

the forgery was committed in the matter, of which the

revisionist had also lodged an F.I.R., in which charge-

sheet has also been submitted.

5. The question of service of statutory notice

has also been raised; in fact, in the impugned judgment

of trial court, at Paragraph No. 3, it is recorded that the

notice was returned with the remark "left the residence

without intimation". Is it sufficient service?

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that this matter requires deliberation.

7. Admit.

8. List this matter for hearing on 04.05.2023

along with the LCR.

9. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2022.

10. The learned counsel for the revisionist

would submit that revisionist is 81 years old person. He

has falsely been implicated in the matter.

11. This criminal revision has already been

admitted. It is against the conviction and sentence of the

revisionist under Section 138 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. The execution of the sentence appealed

against shall remain suspended during pendency of the

revision.

15. 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 23.01.2023

PR/A