Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/524/2024 on 31 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. 524 of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shravan Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State. The challenge in this revision is made to the
(i) Judgment and order dated 13.04.2018, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 523 of 2011 (187 of 2016), State Vs. Parvez Alam alias Vinni and others, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 120-B, 420, 506 IPC and sentenced thereunder and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.07.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2018, Parvez Alam alias Vinni and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the appeal"). By it, the order passed in the case was confirmed in appeal.
According to the case, the daughter of the informant, Mamta had lost her husband. Property was recorded in the name of Mamta. She has three children also. Mamta transferred the property in favour of the revisionist Jabar Ali and also transferred the share of her minor children. It is this case, in which, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted; cognizance was taken and by the impugned judgment and order the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. It was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.
Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that no criminal offence, as such has been made. He would submit that the son of Mamta had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, but that suit had already been dismissed; the sale- deeds are in existence at the strength of law.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that this matter requires deliberation.
Admit.
List on 15.10.2024.
Heard on Exemption Application (IA) No.2 of 2024.
The revisionist seeks exemption from surrendering.
It is submitted that the revisionists have 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 revisionists executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Exemption Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.07.2024 Sanjay