Uttarakhand High Court
Jewellers vs Nautiyal on 18 October, 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.690 of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State.
The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 13.02.2023, passed in Complaint No.334 of 2023, Raj Jewellers vs. Smt. Sheetal Nautiyal, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act") and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,50,000/-.
Out of the fine, the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- will be payable to the respondent no.2 as compensation and Rs.10,000/-
will be deposited by the revisionist in the treasury. In case of non payment of fine, which is to be deposited in the treasury, the revisionist will have to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023, Smt. Sheetal Nautiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar ("the appeal"). By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 13.02.2023, passed in the case has been upheld.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that as per respondent no.2, the complainant's bank account, from where the cheque has been issued, was not held in the name of the revisionist and it has been so proved by PW4 Punit Singh Negi also.
He would refer to the impugned judgments to argue that, in fact, it is admitted to the complainant that cheque was not drawn from an account maintained by the revisionist. It is argued that it does not make out any case against the revisionist. He would refer to the principle of law as laid down in the case of Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683.
In the case of Jugesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed "as per the complainant's own pleadings, the bank account from where the cheque has been issued, was not held in the name of the appellant and therefore, one of the requisite ingredients of Section 138 of the Act was not satisfied."
Having considered, this Court is of the view that this matter requires deliberation.
Admit.
Call for the LCR.
List on 02.01.2025 for hearing. Heard on Exemption Application (IA No.2 of 2024).
The revisionist seeks exemption from surrendering.
It is submitted that the revisionist has 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 revisionist 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.) 18.10.2024 Ravi