Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Gulati vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2024
With
IA No.1 of 2024 for Bail Application
Rajesh Gulati ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Rahul Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder
for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 09.05.2022,
passed in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2020,
Lalit Mohan Singh Vs. Rajesh Gulati, by the
court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Haridwar ("the case"). By it,
the revisionist has been convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 ("the Act") and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of three
months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs. 2,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one months;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.01.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2022,
Rajesh Gulati Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another, by the court of V Additional Chief
Sessions Judge, Haridwar ("the appeal"). By
it, the order passed in the case was affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist is ready to pay the amount of fine even
if it is increased, as prescribed under Section 138 of the
Act. He would submit that the sentence of the
imprisonment may be reduced to the period of custody,
which the revisionist has already undergone. It is argued
that the matter may be heard to the extent of examining the
correctness of sentence and reducing the sentence of the
revisionist.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that the revisionist works in a private sector and
earns hardly Rs. 30,000/- per month; the revisionist is 64
years of age.
5. Having heard to the extent of examining the
correctness of sentence, the revision is admitted
6. Admit.
7. Issue notices to the respondent no.2 returnable
within four weeks.
8. Steps to be taken within a week.
9. List this matter for final hearing on 11.06.2024.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2024
10. The challenge in this revision is made to the
conviction and sentence of the revisionist recorded by the
court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/First
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in
Criminal Case No. 209 of 2020, Lalit Mohan Singh Vs.
Rajesh Gulati, by which the revisionist has been convicted
under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to 3 months'
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,05,000/- with
further stipulation that Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation and remaining amount shall
be paid in the Government Exchequer, as well as the
judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.82 of 2022, Rajesh Gulati Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, by the court of V Additional
Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the judgment and order
dated 09.05.2022, passed in the case, has been upheld.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist has been on bail throughout during trial
or in appeal. He would submit that the revisionist is ready
and willing to deposit the fine that has been imposed upon
him.
12. In fact, when the arguments were heard on
admission, it was argued on behalf of the revisionist that
the revisionist is ready and willing to deposit even the
enhanced fine; he has been in custody for almost two
months now. Therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the
period he has already undergone.
13. The revision was admitted only to the extent of
examining the correctness of sentence alone. It is argued
that the revisionist is ready and willing to deposit the fine
even today.
14. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be allowed.
15. The bail application is allowed.
16. Let the revisionist-Rajesh Gulati be released on
bail, during the pendency of this revision, on his executing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each
of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned and also subject to the deposition of fine.
17. Whatever amount has been deposited by the
revisionist at the time when the appeal was admitted, that
shall be adjusted against the amount of fine that has been
imposed on the revisionist.
(Ravindra Maithani,J.)
22.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
