Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1402 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner without surrendering before the learned lower Appellate Court - HELD THAT:- This Court has every doubt with regard to the maintainability of this criminal revision petition without surrender of the petitioner before learned Court below after dismissal of his appeal. There is no doubt that this Court can suspend the execution of the sentence as per provision contained in Section 401, Cr.P.C., while hearing criminal revision petition, but that has to be done only when the petitioner is behind the bars - Concededly, it is not a case where the learned lower Appellate Court had suspended the sentence and granted time to the petitioner to file the present petition. In that eventuality, on course this Court can accept the prayer and allow him to remain on bail if the provision so permit. The petitioner was not satisfied with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, therefore, filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Jalandhar, but thereafter in the month of February, 2013, he absented himself and never appeared before the learned lower Appellate Court, therefore, the said Court was constrained to pronounce the judgment in the absence of the petitioner. The learned lower Appellate Court also concurred its findings with the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal - the findings recorded by the learned two Courts below are well based since the respondent-complainant was able to prove that the cheque amounting to ₹ 7,50,000/- issued by the petitioner- accused in discharge of his legal liability had bounced and in spite of the notice issued by the respondent-complainant, the petitioner-accused failed to pay the amount. The evidence led by the respondent-complainant has established his case, therefore, no ground is made out for interference by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.
|