Syed Sameer Mehdi vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Distt. Lko. and Another

By means of the present revision, the revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 03/12/2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2025 by learned Special Judge Ayurved Scam / CBI, District Lucknow, Title Sayed Sameer Mehdi versus State of UP and another .

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned appellate court has dismissed the application dated 17/11/2025, filed by the revisionist for reducing 20% of the fine awarded by the trial court in judgment and order dated 20.02.2025, whereby the appellant has been convicted for a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶13

It appears that the learned trial court had convicted the appellant) and sentenced him to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20 lakh, against which the appellant had preferred an appeal before the court of session.

¶14

CRLR No. 1501 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

The court of session, while admitting the appeal, directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the fine by the next date fixed and subject to the deposit of 20% of the fine, the remaining 80% amount was stayed on 31/03/2025. The appellant filed an application for extending the time limit for depositing 20% of the fine, for which 15 days further time was granted by the appellate court. On 07/04/2025, he again filed a request for an extension of time, which was considered on 14/04/2025, and the appellant was directed to deposit the 20% by 14/04/2025, and the date was fixed for 15/04/2025. As the appellant failed to deposit the 20% fine even within the extended time, the appellate court recalled the order dated 20.02.2025 and directed the appellant to appear before the trial court. However, the appellant failed to appear before the trial court, and a coercive process of NBW and a process under sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were directed to issue. The appellant filed an application before the appellate court for a reduction of the amount of 20% which was directed to be deposited at the time of filing the appeal. The said application has been dismissed by the appellate court by the impugned order, stating the conduct of the appellant and it is observed that after passing of the order dated 20.02.2025, a ninemonth period had elapsed, and said application has been filed on 17/11/2025, whereas the order dated 20.02.2025 had already been recorded on 15/04/2025. The Learned appellate court has observed that the appellant deliberately filed the application with much delay, without any explanation, and he has not cited any proper and cogent explanation while dismissing the application dated 17/11/2025. The appellate court has directed a short report before the trial court regarding the implementation of the judgment and order dated 22/01/2025.

¶17

Keeping in view the conduct of the appellant before the trial court as

¶18

CRLR No. 1501 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

well as the appellate court and consistent non-compliance of the orders passed by both courts below, the revision is not maintainable against the impugned order and accordingly dismissed.

¶21

However, the appellant is at liberty to move before the court below to appear before the court below and surrender to the impugned order passed by the trial court. If he deposits the amount of 20% fine before the trial court within a month and surrenders before the trial court to the judgment of conviction, judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellate court may consider the ground of granting fresh bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal.

¶22

The revision is dismissed subject to the above observations. However, it is clarified that if the revisionist appears before the trial court within 15 days and surrenders to the judgement awarded by the trial court, he will be taken into custody and if he deposits 20% of the fine within a month before the trial court, the appellate court shall consider the release of the revisionist on bail during the appeal.

¶23

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶24

January 14, 2026 KR

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Syed Sameer Mehdi v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Distt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sameer Mehdi v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Distt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janakram Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Indrajeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Vishal Shukla @ Pranjul Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Ankit Alias Barati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Waseeq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another