Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Vinod Kumar convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act. Counsel withdrew the plea as the accused had already served the awarded sentence and default sentence after bail default and subsequent detention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 987 of 2017
Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K.Umrao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhananjay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
In the present case, the revisionist was convicted by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 6.9.2016 passed in Case No.1220 of 2012 whereby the revisionist was held guilty under Section 138 N.I. Act and awarded sentence of one year and fine of Rs.7,50,000/- and in the event of non-payment of said amount, further awarded sentence of one month.
Meanwhile, the revisionist was arrested on 8.11.2016 and he also filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2016. During the pendency of appeal, the revisionist was granted bail on 10.4.2017 and he was released from jail on 10.4.2017. However, the said appeal was rejected by an order dated 4.2.2017 and revisionist rushed to this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.
In the present revision petition, by an order dated 29.3.2017 bail was granted to the revisionist with the condition that he will deposit Rs.5,00,000/- out of total fine of Rs.7,50,000/- within a period of two months from the date of releasing on bail. Admittedly, the said amount was not paid by the revisionist and he was arrested on 9.6.2017 and after undergoing the entire sentence awarded to him, he was released from jail on 16.4.2018.
In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 28.9.2022, a supplementary affidavit has been filed before this Court wherein the details of custody period of the revisionist has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in total the revisionist has already undergone about 15 months and 9 days i.e. from 8.11.2016 to 10.4.2017 (about 5 months and 2 days) and from 9.6.2017 to 16.4.2018 (about 10 months and 7 days).
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not been able to dispute the custody certificate of the revisionist issued by Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Aligarh.
In view of the above, since the revisionist has already undergone sentence awarded by the Trial Court including default sentence, therefore learned counsel for the revisionist is not pursuing this revision petition.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022 SP
Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.10.21 14:55:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisionist petition should be dismissed after the petitioner has already undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court including default sentence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
