Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Uma Sharma & Anr. vs. Arpit Mittal
CA No. 242/2024
16.12.2024
The undersigned is also working as Link Judge today for the
Court of Ld.ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which
is a vacant Court, today.
Present : Appellants in person with Ld. Counsel.
1. Heard. Record perused. The present appeal is directed
against the judgment dated 03.07.2024 and order on sentence
dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC-04, North
Distt, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case titled as “Arpit Mittal vs.
Uma Sharma”, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the accused persons (appellants herein) for the
offence punishable u/s 138 N.I. Act.
2. An application u/s 148 N.I. Act has also been filed on
behalf of the appellants seeking waiver of pre-deposit of fine
on the following grounds :- (i) The health condition of the
appellants is very poor; (ii) Appellant no. 1 is suffering from
diabetes; (iii) Whole case of the complainant is based on
photocopies which have been wrongly exhibited; (iv)
Financial condition of the appellants is very weak; (v) One
case of recovery is pending against the appellants before Debt.
Recovery Tribunal; and (vi) No notice was framed against the
appellants by the Ld. Trial Court.
3. I have perused the record including the impugned
judgment and order on sentence. Perusal of the record reveals
that even though the notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was not framed
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Uma Sharma & Anr. vs. Arpit Mittal
CA No. 242/2024
against the appellants/accused persons, but the cross
examination of complainant's witness i.e. CW1 was conducted
on behalf of the appellants and the defence was also brought
on record. As per Sec. 464 Cr.PC, no finding, sentence or
order by any Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed
invalid merely on the ground that no notice/charge was
framed. Pleas regarding the poor health condition of appellant
no. 1 and pendency of case before Debt. Recovery Tribunal,
are not justified grounds for waiver of pre-deposit as mandated
by law. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made herein
above, the present application stands dismissed.
4. An application u/s 430 BNSS for suspension of sentence
awarded to the appellants by the Ld. Trial Court and grant of
bail till disposal of the present appeal, has also been filed
along with the present appeal, stating therein that the
appellants have remained on bail during the course of trial.
Arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded
to the appellants i.e. Uma Sharma and Sanjay Sharma by
the Ld. Trial Court vide order on sentence dated
29.10.2024, is suspended subject to deposit of 25% of the
compensation amount as awarded by the Ld. Trial Court
in the form of FDR in the name of this Court within a
period of 30 days from today and the appellants are granted
bail till the final disposal of the present appeal on furnishing
-- 2 of 3 --
3
Uma Sharma & Anr. vs. Arpit Mittal
CA No. 242/2024
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety
each in the like amount. The same are furnished and accepted.
5. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits
that one connected appeal is pending adjudication before the
Court of Sh. Viplav Dabas, Ld. ASJ, North District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi. Appellants are at liberty to file appropriate
application/petition before the Court of Ld. Pr. District &
Sessions Judge, North District, seeking transfer of both the
appeals in one same Court, in the interest of justice and to
avoid conflicting orders.
6. Notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent on
filing of PF/RC within 7 working days, for 21.02.2025. TCR
be also summoned.
7. Copy of this order be given to the Ld. Counsel for the
appellants dasti and be also sent to Ld. Trial Court for
information.
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
ASJ-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi/16.12.2024
-- 3 of 3 --