FIROZ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 27/10/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2021 (Firoz Vs. Mohd. Irfan and Others) arising out of Case No. 7723 of 2017 (Ifran Vs. Firoz) under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Kanth, District- Moradabad. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and has also cancelled the bail granted to appellant-accused during the pendency of appeal.

(2.) It is undisputed that vide order dtd. 12/5/2021 revisionist(accused) was admitted to bail subject to condition that he will deposit 50% of the amount of fine within a month. After getting released the revisionist(applicant) moved an application before the Appellate Court to modify the aforesaid order which was rejected. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned order that the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal simply on the ground that accused/appellant has failed to comply the order dtd. 12/5/2021 and to deposit amount of fine as directed. The appeal has not been heard and decided on merits. The condition of depositing 50% of the amount of fine was imposed in bail during appeal, so the appeal itself cannot be dismissed on this ground. At the most, Appellate Court can do was to cancel his bail but the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on this ground. So, the impugned order dismissing the appeal suffers from manifest illegality and cannot be sustained. The revision is liable to be allowed.

(3.) The Criminal Revision is allowed and order dtd. 27/10/2021 is set aside. The Appellate Court shall restore the appeal to its original number and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties will decide the criminal appeal in accordance with law.