Dismissed

Bal Krishan v. Budh Dev Kalia

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jul 2024CRMP/2029/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner failed to comply with conditions for suspension of sentence imposed in a previous order. The court dismissed the application for extension of time under Section 148(2) NI Act, noting the applicant could not show sufficient cause. The trial court was left at liberty to proceed.

What did the court decide?

None. Application dismissed. Trial court at liberty to proceed against applicant.

Bal Krishan Vs Budh Dev Kalia — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Bal Krishan vs. Budh Dev Kalia

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 46 of 2024

¶3

12.07.2024 Present: Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶5

Cr.MP No. 2029 of 2024

¶6

On 5.1.2024, while deciding the

¶7

application for suspension of sentence, the following order was passed by this Court:-

¶8

“Cr. M.P. St. No. 10508 of 2023

¶9

By way of the present application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/applicant has sought the suspension of order of sentence, dated 17.1.2023, passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, as referred to above. Since the revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to herein- above will take sufficient long time, for its disposal, as such, the order of sentence is suspended during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions:

¶10

(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of final dismissal of the revision petition, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence;

¶11

(ii) That the applicant shall deposit 30% of the total amount of fine, with the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be in addition to the amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant;

¶12

The application is, thus, disposed of.

¶13

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing”

¶14

The said order has not been complied with. Thereafter, the present application has been moved.

¶15

Section 148(2) of the Negotiable

¶16

Instruments Act reads, as under:

¶17

The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.

¶18

In view of the above provisions of law, the

¶19

applicant is not able to make out a case for extension of time to comply with the aforesaid order. Consequently, application under consideration is dismissed.

¶20

Learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed further, against the applicant, in accordance with law.

¶21

Service complete.

¶22

Admit. List for hearing as per its turn.

¶23

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶24

July 12,2024 (veena)

Bal Krishan v. Budh Dev Kalia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishan v. Budh Dev Kalia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State of Hp

S.D. Sankhayan Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gopal Singh Thapa Vs Hpspcb

Chaman Lal Vs Hrtc

Gauri Shankar Vs Jagdev Singh

Rohan Kumar Jha Vs State of Hp