Uttarakhand High Court
Khan vs Smt. Kamlesh And on 6 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No. 270 of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Vinayak Pant, Advocate for the
revisionist.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the
State/respondent no.1.
The challenge in this revision is made
to the
(i) Judgment and order dated
23.03.2022, passed in Criminal
Case No. 1729 of 2018, Noor
Khan vs. Smt. Kamlesh and
another, by the court of Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital, District
Nainital ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted
under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 ("the Act") and sentenced
thereunder and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated
15.02.2024, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 20 of 2022, Kamlesh
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
another, by the court of
Additional District and Sessions
Judge (IInd), Nainital, District
Nainital ("the appeal"). By it, the
order passed in the case was
confirmed in appeal.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that his conviction is bad in
the eyes of law. The revisionist has no
relation with the complainant. Son of the
complainant,+ Jishan was in dealing with
the revisionist. The revisionist has paid all
the money to Jishan, but Jishan has
misused all the seven cheques given by
the revisionist. Based on one cheque in
Criminal Case No. 10678 of 2018, Shoeb
Mohammad Khan vs. Kamlesh and
another was instituted in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate-04, N.I. Act,
South-East District, Saket District Courts,
Delhi, in which, the revisionist has been
acquitted.
It is argued that on 08.02.2018, before
filing of the complaint, the revisionist has
filed a complaint against Jishan.
Reference has been made to the Annexure
No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit
dated 18.08.2024, filed by the revisionist.
Having considered, this Court is of the
view that this matter requires
deliberation.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent no.2,
returnable within eight weeks. Steps to be
taken within a week.
Heard on Exemption Application (IA)
No.2 of 2024.
The revisionist seeks exemption from
surrendering.
It is submitted that the revisionist
has been on bail throughout during trial or
in appeal. He would submit that the
sentence impugned may be stayed, subject
to the conditions that may be imposed by
the Court.
In the case of Shubham Singhal Vs.
High Court of Uttarakhand, in Writ
Petition (M/B) No. 84 of 2023, the Division
Bench of this Court has held that
application seeking exemption may be
entertained without insisting for surrender
of the applicant.
In the case of Sanjay Nagyach Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC
OnLine MP 898, the Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court on an application for
exemption to surrender, passed the order
and required the applicant in that case to
furnish bonds.
Having considered, this Court is of
the view that the execution of impugned
sentence, shall remain suspended during
& until the conclusion of the revision,
subject to the revisionist executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
Exemption Application is disposed of
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.09.2024
Sanjay
