SATISH TANDON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 29.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act'), awarded by the learned Trial Court, was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.

(2.) Before proceeding further it is apposite to mention that at the time of delivery of the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Jalandhar, the petitioner did not remain present and the judgment was pronounced in his absence. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner without surrendering before the learned lower Appellate Court. In other words, the petitioner was not in custody at the time of filing of the present criminal revision petition, therefore, he is avoiding his arrest from the time the learned first appellate Court decided the appeal.

(3.) At the hearing, a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the present criminal revision petition is maintainable without surrender of the petitioner-accused after dismissal of his appeal by the learned lower Appellate Court. The answer of the learned counsel was that due to injury sustained by the petitioner, he was confined to bed and, hence, unable to attend the Court and, as such, the present petition is maintainable. He further submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence has also been made, therefore, this Court can permit the petitioner to argue the present case even without his surrender. He further submitted that on merit the petitioner has a prima facie good case because both the learned Courts below have wrongly held him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and awarded the sentence as noticed above.