High CourtsSingle Bench

Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 UK CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 717 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 344 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Revisionist-accused Brij Bhushan Sharma was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 7,52,850/- for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A Criminal Appeal (No. 144 of 2022) was filed against the said judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2022, passed by learned IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 29 of 2017. The said Appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.09.2023, passed by learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

2.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, submits that revisionist has surrendered before the Court concerned on 09.10.2023. A copy of question-answer has been filed by Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate. The same is taken on record.

4.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, further submits that revisionist was on the post of accountant in the Trust of the respondent no. 2-complainant. A charge of misappropriation was leveled against him. He issued a cheque of Rs. 7,90,000/- to settle the matter. The said cheque has been misused by the complainant in the present case.

5.

In support of the said submissions, Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, has pointed to the letter dated 11.05.2015, issued by the complainant (page no. 58).

6.

Admit.

7.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

8.

Steps to be taken within a week.

9.

List on 05.12.2023.

10.

Heard on the Bail Application (IA No. 1 of 2023).

11.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, contended that the revisionist was on bail during the trial and appeal, and, the conditions of bail were never misused nor violated by him.

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the revisionist Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma.

13.

Let the revisionist be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.