Sanjay Ranjta  Vs  Kirti Pal Cr.MP(M) No. 1993 of 2025 30.08.2025 Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Nishant Khidta, Advocate, for the respondent. The applicant Sanjay Ranjta, has pressed the accompanying Criminal Revision against the judgment dated   09.04.2024,   passed   by   the   Court   of   learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Vide judgment dated 09.04.2024, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of applicant Sanjay Ranjta, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 30.09.2023, 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. 122­3 of 2019, titled as Kirti Pal Vs Sanjay Ranjta & Anr. 3. Vide   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of sentence dated 30.09.2023, the learned trial Court has convicted   the   applicant   for   the   offence,   punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/­. 4. Since, the revision has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed  for  condonation  of delay. The   delay,   as   per   the   applicant,   is   one   year   three months and 14 days. 5. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the   ground   that   the   applicant   is   physically handicapped person and his disability creates inherent limitations in mobility, accessibility to legal services and coordination of legal proceedings. 6. Another ground upon which condonation of delay has been sought is that presently, the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.01.2025, in connection with other case bearing complaint No. 53­3 of 2015, titled as ‘Shishu Lal  Vs  Sanjay Rajta’. 7. On the basis of above facts, the delay has been sought to be condoned. 8 When put to notice, the application has been contested by the non­applicant by filing reply.  In the reply, preliminary objections have been taken that the application is not maintainable, as no sufficient cause has been put forward to condone the delay. 9. In   addition   to   this,   according   to   the   non­ applicant, the delay is intentional and deliberate, in order to protect the litigation, as vague averments have been made in the application. 10. The physical incapacity of the applicant has also   been   contested   on   the   ground   that   there   is nothing   on   record   to   spell   out   the   fact   about   his disability.     No   documentary   evidence   has   been   put forward to prove or probablize the said stand. 11. The   condonation   of   delay   has   also   been contested by pleading that the applicant is well to do businessman and he has not paid the hard earned money to the non­applicant.   On the basis of above facts,   a   prayer   has   been   made   to   dismiss   the application. 12. Heard. 13. Although, the applicant has not annexed any certificate   to   demonstrate   about   his   disability, however,   this   fact   has   duly   been   recorded   by   the learned trial Court at the time of deciding the question of quantum of sentence.   Moreover, the applicant is not going to achieve anything as, his appeal has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 14. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the  view   that   the  applicant   is   not   going   to  achieve anything by not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, by the reasons mentioned in the application. 15. Even otherwise, the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of the technicalities. As   such,   the   application   under   consideration   is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. 16. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No._______ of 2025 17. Vide   order   of   the   even   date,   passed   in Cr.MP(M)   No.   1993   of   2025,   the   delay   in   filing   the Criminal Revision has been ordered to be condoned. 18. Be registered. 19. Call for the record. Cr.MPST No. 7543 of 2025 20. By   way   of   the   present   application,   the petitioner/applicant has sought the suspension of order of sentence dated 30.09.2023,  passed by the learned trial Court in Cr. Case No. 122­3 of 2019, titled as, ‘Kirti Pal  Vs  Sanjay Ranjta’. 21. Since, the present Criminal Revision is likely to take sufficient long time, for its disposal, as such, the order   of   sentence   dated   30.09.2023,   passed   by   the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the present revision petition, 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 50% of the total amount of compensation, which has been referred to by the learned trial Court as fine, with the learned trial Court, 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. 22. Application is, thus, disposed of. 23. 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. August 30, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Pramod) Judge