Kumar Alias Mahendra Prakash vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 822 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kumar Alias Mahendra Prakash vs Unknown on 10 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.422 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist.

2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.

3. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2025, Manoj Kumar alias Mahendra Prakash Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court was affirmed; as well as judgment and order dated 22.02.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class/Civil Judge (J.D.) Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh in Criminal Complaint No.188 of 2020, State of Uttarakhand (Forest Department) Vs. Manoj Kumar alias Mahendra Prakash and another, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Sections 39, 49B and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended 2006 and sentenced three years simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- with default stipulation of 15 days' additional simple imprisonment.

4. It is further stated that the period spent in Jail shall be set-off with the sentence imposed by the court.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that both the judgment and orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court suffers from manifest error of law and facts, therefore the revisionist was wrongly convicted.

6. In order to elucidate his argument, it is further

submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that no H2 Report was filed by the forest officials, the revisionist- accused was wrongly challaned, charge sheeted and accordingly convicted.

7. I have perused the judgment and order passed by trial court as well as the appellate court.

8. This submission made by learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist has some meaning, therefore this criminal revision is worthy to be admitted.

9. Admit.

10. Sent for T.C.R. Bail Application (IA No.2 of 2025)

11. Learned counsel for the applicant would press for the bail application.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the judgment and order passed by the appellate court the revisionist was given time to surrender before the trial court till 08.07.2025 vide its judgment and order dated 25.06.2025 and the revisionist has surrendered before the trial court on 08.07.2025 wherefrom he was sent to the jail to serve out his sentence.

13. In order to substantiate his submission annexure no.1 is annexed along with the bail application.

14. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant as contended by him while admission of instant revision, this Court is of the view that since the revisionist-applicant has been convicted only for a sentence of three years, therefore it would be prudent to release the revisionist-applicant on bail.

15. Accordingly Bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant - Manoj Kumar alias Mahendra Prakash 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.

18. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2025 passed by trial court by which the revisionist-applicant is convicted is hereby suspended, till the disposal of this criminal revision.

19. Apart from this fact, this Court is disturbed to know that quite often it is seen that the appellate court while dismissing the appeal is granting time to the appellant- accused to surrender before the trial court to serve out his sentence.

20. This power exercised by the appellate court is beyond jurisdiction and something excess of jurisdiction assigned by the law to appellate court.

21. From perusal of Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. (Section 430(3) of B.N.S.S. 2023), it transpires that this power is given only to the court which is convicting a person. The appellate court is not convicting rather it generally affirms the judgment and order of convicting the accused, as is done in the case in hand.

22. Appellate court is not armed with such power, therefore, giving time to the accused after dismissal of the appeal to surrender is quite illegal. This power can only be exercised under inherent powers which the appellate court

is not entrusted with.

23. Let notice be issued to Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh forthwith on administrative side calling upon it to explain as to under which provision of law the appellant was granted time to surrender before the trial court till 08.07.2025 by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2025.

24. List this case on 25.09.2025.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.07.2025 SK