Uttarakhand High Court
Radhey Shyam Yadav vs Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
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.460 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against judgment and
order dated 16.06.2025, passed by learned District and
Sessions Jude, Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2025,
Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. State and another, whereby the
appeal preferred by the revisionist has been dismissed as well
as judgment and order dated 22.01.2025, passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Complaint
Case No.271 of 2024, Jitendra Singh Vs. Radhey Shyam
Yadav, whereby the revisionist has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 for a period of
six months imprisonment and fine/compensation of
₹5,30,000/- and directed the revisionist to pay the aforesaid
amount of fine/compensation to the respondent/complainant-
Jitendra Singh Mahar within a period of one month from the
date of the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that
both the trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to
appreciate the evidence in proper manner.
5. It is further submitted by him that amount under
cheque had already been paid to one Manoj Punera on the
asking of the complainant-Jitendra Singh Mahar.
6. A witness DW2 the Branch Manager of the Indian Bank,
Pithoragarh was also examined who admitted the fact that as
per the bank statement dated 21.05.2018 a sum of
₹5,00,000/- was credited in the account of Manoj Punera.
7. According to learned counsel for the revisionist, this fact
has not been appreciated properly and revisionist has been
wrongly convicted and sentenced and his appeal has been
dismissed.
8. Admit.
9. Issue notice to respondent no.2, returnable within four
weeks.
10. Steps to be taken within a week.
11. Sent for T.C.R.
Bail and Suspension of sentence (IA No.1 of 2025)
12. Learned counsel for the revisionist would press for the
bail application.
13. This fact is also in mind of this Court that during
pendency of the trial as well as appeal the revisionist was on
bail and he never misused the same.
14. In view of the argument advanced by counsel for the
revisionist for admission of the revision, this Court is of the
view that at this stage the applicant deserves to be released on
bail.
15. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant - Radhey Shram Yadav be released on
bail, during pendency of the present criminal revision, on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
17. Realization of fine, as imposed by the trial court, shall
also remain stayed, during pendency of the present criminal
revision. The sentence shall also remain suspended.
18. List this case on 28.10.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.07.2025
SK
