Kapil Raj Sharma Vs. Satish Gautam (since deceased) through LRs Cr. MP(M) No. 377 of 2025 25.3.2025 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the respondents/non-applicants. Cr. M.P. No. 578 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in reﬁling the present revision petition is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. M.P. (M) No. 377 of 2025 2. In view of no objection made by learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents, delay in ﬁling the present revision petition is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No. ________ 3. Vide order of the even date, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 377 of 2025, delay in ﬁling the present revision petition has been ordered to be condoned. 4. Be registered. 5. Certain arguable points are involved in the present revision petition, as such, the same is admitted for hearing. 6. Call for the records. 7. List on 20.5.2025. Cr. M.P. No. _________ 8. Be registered. 9. By way of the present application, under Section 430 read with Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), the petitioner/applicant has sought the suspension of order of sentence, dated 16.12.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 713/3 of 2015, titled as, ‘Satish Gautam vs. Kapil Raj Sharma’, whereby the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2019, has convicted the applicant for the commission of oﬀence, under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay ﬁne of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 10. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been aﬃrmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), vide judgment dated 12.1.2024, in Cr. Appeal No. 10-NL-10 of 2020, titled as, ‘Kapil Raj Sharma versus Satish Gautam (since deceased) through LRs’. 11. Since the revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, will take suﬃcient long time, for its disposal, as such, the order of sentence dated 16.12.2019 is suspended during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of ﬁnal dismissal of the revision petition, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence; (ii) That the applicant shall deposit 30% of the total amount of compensation, with the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be in addition to the amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant; (iii) That the applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. 12. The application is, thus, disposed of. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing. (Virender Singh) Judge March 25, 2025 (kalpana)

KAPIL RAJ SHARMA v. SATISH GAUTAM (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRs.)

Judgment text