Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2004 of 2015 Revisionist :- Hansraj Vishwakarma @ Hansnarayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.P.S. Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ashish Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 18.05.2015 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Court No. 6 Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2012 and judgment and order dated 19.3.2012 in complaint case no. 711 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act one year simple imprisonment with 2,30,000/- fine and Rs. 2,20,000/- may be paid to the complainant as compassion and remaining 10,000/- fine in default of payment of fine one months simple imprisonments.
The complainant under Section 138 N.I. Act has filed complaint against the revisionist on 13.4.2006 before the Court below and vide order dated 19.3.2012 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8 Varanasi has convicted and sentence the revisionist for one year simple imprisonment in offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act with compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as a fine and in default of deposition of compensation as well as fine he will undergone with one month simple imprisonment.
Against the order, the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge and the said appeal was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Varanasi vide order dated 18.04.2015, whereby the appellate Court affirmed the order of Trial Court dated 19.3.2012 and against the appellate order the revisionist preferred present Criminal Revision before this Court and vide order dated 18.6.2015, the revisionist was granted bail by this Court subject to he has deposited half compensation as well as fine imposed by the Court below.
The revisionist has deposited half of the compensation and fine amount of Rs.1,15,000/- before the Court below.
I have gone through the materials available on record and the impugned order too. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below has taken much pain in analyzing the evidence adduced before him. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court has no infirmity or illegality.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned and there is no justifiable ground for making any interference in it. Hence, revision fails and it is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :-29.7.2021 Fhd.