Shurveer Singh Vs. Surinder Singh Cr.MP(M) No.1652 of 2024 27.03.2025 Present: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate for the respondent. Applicant-Shurveer Singh has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 22.11.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (CBI), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.40-R/10 of 2021, titled as ‘Shurveer Singh Vs. Surinder Singh’. 3. Vide judgment dated 22.11.2022, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Criminal Appeal, preferred by applicant-Shurveer Singh, against judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2021 and order of sentence dated 22.04.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.RBT-470/3 of 2019/15, titled as ‘Surinder Singh Vs. Shurveer’. 4. Vide judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2021 and order of sentence dated 22.04.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,60,000/-. 5. Since, the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 6. As per report of Registry, there is delay of 1 year 7 months and 28 days, in filing the accompanying revision petition. 7. The delay has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground that at the time of dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court on 22.11.2022, the applicant was already in judicial custody in connection with another case, which has been decided against him, under Section 138 of NI Act. As such, due to the said fact, he could not file the present revision petition within the prescribed periof of limitation. 8. Thereafter, according to the applicant, he had applied for legal aid, which was accorded to him by the competent authority, vide letter dated 14/15.05.2024. Subsequently, the Legal Aid Counsel, appointed by the competent authority, had contacted the family members of the applicant and thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed. 9. Along with the application, the letter, written by the applicant to Superintendent Jail, District Prisons Kaithu, Shimla, has also been annexed. 10. By way of the said application, a prayer to provide a legal aid counsel has been made to this Court. 11. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the delay in filing the revision petition may be condoned. 12. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by the respondent, mainly on the ground that the application is not maintainable and the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands. Factual position, as mentioned in the application, has been contested/controverted mainly on the ground that the applicant is a habitual litigant. 13. On the basis of above facts, Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate, appearing for non- applicant/respondent has prayed that the application may be dismissed. 14. Heard. 15. The applicant was in judicial custody, at the them, when, his appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 16. There is nothing in the reply about the object, which the applicant would achieve in not preferring the Criminal Revision Petition, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented, on account of his judicial custody, to do so. 17. The applicant thereafter moved the application for legal aid, before the Superintendent Jail, Kaithu, Shimla, on 20.02.2024. 18. Admittedly, due to the administrative exigencies, the legal aid counsel was appointed only on 14/15.05.2024. As such, the said delay cannot be attributed mainly to the negligence/inhabitual of the applicant. 19. Even otherwise, at the time of deciding the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach has to be adopted, as, the matter should be decided on merits and not on technicalities. 20. Considering all these facts, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition is ordered to be condoned. 21. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No._______ of 2025 22. Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.1652 of 2024, the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition has been ordered to be condoned. Be registered. 23. Admit. 24. Call for the records. 25. List on 29.05.2025. CrMPST No.5855 of 2024 26. By way of the present application, which has been filed, under Section 397(1) of the CrPC, the petitioner/applicant has sought the suspension of order of sentence dated 22.04.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2022. 27. Since, the present Criminal Revision Petition, preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to hereinabove, is likely to take sufficient long time, for its disposal, as such, during the pendency of the present revision petition, the order of sentence is ordered to be suspended, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with 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 he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present revision petition, by this Court; (ii) That the applicant shall deposit 30% of the total amount of compensation, which has been referred to by the learned trial Court as fine, with the learned trial Court, within a period of eight weeks from today, which shall be in addition to the amount, if not, already deposited by the applicant. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 28. Application is, thus, disposed of. 29. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with a direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court. March 27, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Gaurav Thakur) Judge