Uttarakhand High Court
Singhal vs Unknown on 12 July, 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.66 of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State. The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 passed in Complaint No.1423 of 2014, Satish Singhal vs. Shri Vibhor Goel, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate /Tenth Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dehradun. By it, the revisionists have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.94,000/- with further directions, which has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2023, Shri Vibhor Kumar and another vs. State and another on 03.11.2023 by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.
Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that impugned judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law. Revisionist No.2 Pooja Goel had not signed the cheque. The handwriting expert's report was submitted. It was so proved by the handwriting expert DW1 Abhishek Vashishtha, but the handwriting expert's report has not been examined by the court below. It is also argued that the cheque was never presented in the bank. The revisionists wanted to summon the bank officers but it was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, the revisionists got information under Right To Information Act, 2005. On 05.04.2019, the bank has informed the revisionists that the cheques were never presented for the payment in the bank.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that this matter requires deliberation.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week.
List on 09.09.2024.
Heard on Exemption Application No.3 of 2024.
The revisionists seek exemption from surrendering.
It is submitted that the revisionists have been on bail throughout during trial or in appeal. They 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 applicants.
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 applicants 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 revisionists executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Exemption Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.07.2024 Ravi