Unknown vs It Is Argued That
2025 Latest Caselaw 2085 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs It Is Argued That on 17 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

                  Office Notes,
               reports, orders or
58SL.           proceedings or
        Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
 No              directions and
               Registrar's order
                with Signatures

                                    CRLR No.594 of 2024
                                    Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Vinay Tomar and Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 12.08.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2023, Pramod Pathak Vs. MDR Enterprises and Another, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has not committed any offence; in fact, the house of the revisionist was grabbed forcibly by the relatives of the complainant and they misused the signed cheques, which were in the house of the revisionist. He would submit that the relatives of the complainant have filed various complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the revisionist, and based on the same defence, the revisionist has been acquitted.

He would refer to the judgment in the case of Aman Rana Vs Parmod Pathak, in Court Case No. 1800/2017, CNR No.DLSW02-002424-2017.

It is argued that, in fact, the defence that has been taken even in the instant case, has been held to be a probable defence by this Court.

Having heard, this Court is of the view that this matter requires deliberations.

Admit.

Issue notices to the respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.

Steps to be taken within a week. List this matter on 15.05.2025. Heard on Exemption Application (IA) No.3 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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Exemption Application is disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani J.) 17.02.2025 RV