[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/229/2026 on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:2666
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR No. 229 of 2026
with
CRLR No. 226 of 2026
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Parihar,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. The instant criminal revision has been
preferred by the revisionist Jai Krishna Bhatt
against the judgment and order dated
16.02.2026 passed by the Incharge District &
Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Appeal
No. 05 of 2026, Jai Krishna Bhatt vs. State of
Uttarakhand, whereby the revisionist is
directed to deposit 50% of the amount of fine
as imposed by the trial court while
convicting the revisionist under Section 60 of
Excise Act.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the
Judicial Magistrate by the judgment and
order dated 17.01.2026 passed in Criminal
Case No. 396 of 2023 convicted the revisionist
2026:UHC:2666
and another on Mr. Dhanendra Singh
Bhandari for the offence punishable under
Section 60 of Excise Act with the sentence of
one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 7,65,372/-.
5. Against their conviction and sentence,
both the convicts preferred Criminal Appeal
No. 04 of 2026 and 05 of 2026 and both of
them were enlarged on bail by the order
dated 16.02.2026. While moving an appeal
the revisionists also pray for suspension of
sentence however, on suspension of sentence
the revisionists were directed to deposit 50%
of the fine as imposed by the trial court,
within a week.
6. Being aggrieved with the direction to
deposit 50% of the amount of fine both the
revisionists/convicts preferred these two
revisions i.e Criminal Revision No. 229 of
2026 and Criminal Revision No. 226 of 2026.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for
the revisionists that in fact the revisionist Jai
Krishna Bhatt is the owner given the godown
on rent and the witness Tazveer Singh is the
actual license holder which admits in his
2026:UHC:2666
statement before the trial court, therefore, the
fine as imposed by the trial court upon the
revisionists is perverse and illegal. He also
submits that so far as the revisionist
Dharmendra Singh Bhandari is concerned, he
was an employee in the godown run by
Tazveer Singh.
8. Admittedly, both the revisionists
preferred separate appeals against their
conviction and the same were already
admitted on 16.02.2026 and they have been
enlarged on bail, however, on suspension of
sentence the revisionists were directed to
50% of the amount of fine which appears to
be unreasonable.
9. Learned counsel for the State have
disputed this fact that, both the revisionists
have been granted bail however there is no
infirmity in the order impugned whereby
they have been directed to deposit 50% of
fine for suspension of sentence.
10. I gone through with the order
impugned. The direction to deposit 50% of
the amount of fine which was imposed by
the trial court prima facie appears to be
2026:UHC:2666
unreasonable particularly when the appeals
preferred by the revisionists against their
conviction were already admitted and
pending for adjudication.
11. In such view of the matter, order
impugned is stayed. Subject to the deposit of
10% of the amount of fine by each of the
revisionists within a month instead of 50%.
12. In view of the direction as above, both
the revisions are disposed of finally.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
15.04.2026
Nahid
2026:UHC:2666
