Daya Ram Vs Ram Krishan

Daya Ram vs Ram Krishan

Cr.M.P (M) No.1021 of 2026

12.06.2026 Present: Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶4

Cr.M.P (M) No.1021 of 2026

¶5

Mr.Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and seeks two weeks’ time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed for the condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision petition.

¶7

It has been averred in the application that the criminal appeal as preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Mandi, H.P, Camp at Karsog, on 12.12.2025, thereafter, the applicant applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 01.01.2026 and the same was made available to him on 06.01.2026. The applicant approached his counsel on 11.01.2026 along with the copy of the judgment. At that relevant time, it was informed by the learned counsel that since there are winter vacations in this Court, therefore, he advised the applicant to complete all the necessary codal formalities and provide the complete file on or before 15.02.2026. Immediately on the opening of this Court, the complete file was sent through one Sh. Mohan on 15.02.2026. Sh. Mohan, by mistake misplaced the file and despite

¶8

making sincere and diligent efforts, could not trace the same for a considerable time. The case file was finally located by Sh. Mohan on 17.04.2026 and on this account, delay has occurred in filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition. It has been stated that delay in filing the instant criminal revision petition is neither willful nor intentional, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶9

Learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection in case the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the instant criminal revision is condoned.

¶10

Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and keeping in view the fact that the learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.

¶11

Application stands disposed off.

¶12

Cr. Revision No_______/2026

¶13

Revision be registered.

¶14

Mr. Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and seeks two weeks’ time to address the arguments on the admission of the present petition.

¶15

CRMPST 4562/2026

¶16

The instant application has been filed by the applicant/ petitioner for seeking stay of execution and implementation of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶17

10.10.2023, as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, Distt. Mandi,H.P in case Reg. No.149/2019 , titled Sh. Ram Krishan vs Daya Ram as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Mandi,HP, camp at Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P vide judgment dated 12.12.2025, in case Reg. No.217 of 2023 titled Daya Ram vs Ram Krishan.

¶18

As per the case as set up by the respondent/complainant, it was stated in the complaint that he is a shepherd by profession and also deals in sale and purchase of goats and usually does his business at Karsog. Further, the accused, being a shopkeeper and running a meat shop at place Oddi, Tehsil Kumarsain, came to Karsog and approached the complainant on 01.06.2019 at place Kotlu to purchase 18 goats for amounting to Rs.70,000/-. In order to purchase the goats, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque bearing No.759507 dated 07.06.2019, amounting to Rs.70,000/- pertaining to PNB, Branch Madhauni, Distt. Shimla, H.P.

¶19

On presentation of the said cheque, the cheque got dishonoured on account of “insufficiency of funds”, therefore, under such circumstances, respondent was constrained to institute the complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶20

Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, HP vide its judgment dated 10.10.2023 convicted the

¶21

present applicant/petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months with further condition that compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- shall be paid by the applicant/petitioner to the respondent.

¶22

The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Mandi, H.P, camp at Karsog, Distt. Mandi,H.P vide its judgment dated 12.12.2025.

¶23

The perusal of the present revision petition reveals that applicant/petitioner has raised arguable points in the same and it will take some time for the final disposal.

¶24

Therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2023, as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, Distt. Mandi,H.P in case Reg. No.149/2019 , titled Sh. Ram Krishan vs Sh. Daya Ram , as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Mandi,HP, camp at Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P dated 12.12.2025, in case Reg. No.217 of 2023, titled Daya Ram vs Ram Krishan is ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the present revision petition, subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) That the applicant/petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-,

¶26

along with 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 he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present petition, by this Court;

¶27

(ii) That the applicant/petitioner shall deposit 30% of the total amount of compensation, which has been referred to by the learned trial court as fine, with the learned trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today, which shall be in addition to the amount, if not, already deposited by the applicant.

¶28

(iii) The applicant/petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶29

Application stands disposed off.

¶30

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with a direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing, so that same can be placed in Court file.

¶31

(Romesh Verma) Vacation Judge

¶32

June 12, 2026 (meera)

Daya Ram v. Ram Krishan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Ram v. Ram Krishan

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

Mamta Dhiman Vs State of Hp and Others

Balvinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Balraj Kaundal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Babita Kumari Vs Rajinder Prasad

NHAI Vs Chuni Lal

Jatinder Paul Vs Kaushalaya Devi and Ors.