Ramesh Chand Vs. Ravinder Kumar CrMP(M) No.155 of 2025 10.03.2025 Present: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/ appellant. Mr. Sumesh Raj, Advocate for the respondent. Reply to the application filed. Applicant has filed the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 10.06.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.45-X/2023, titled as ‘Ramesh Chand Vs. Ravinder Kumar’. 3. Vide judgment dated 10.06.2024, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the appeal of petitioner-Ramesh Chand, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora Court, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), has been dismissed. 4. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2023, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner 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.12,00,000/- to the complainant. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 5. Since, the present petition has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed for condonation of delay of 125 days. 6. The delay has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground that after the decision of the appeal, preferred before the learned First Appellate Court, the father of the applicant suffered paralytic attack and as such, the applicant could not contact his counsel at Shimla and thereafter, the wife of the applicant had contacted the counsel. 7. In this case, the appeal, preferred by the applicant, has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Meaning thereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. All these facts have been denied/disputed, but, the reply is totally silent about the object, which the applicant would achieve in not preferring the revision petition, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, for the reasons, as mentioned, in the application. 9. Moreover, the applicant’s appeal has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court was at liberty to execute the same by taking the coercive steps against the applicant by remanding him to the judicial custody to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment, for a period of one year. 10. On the basis of above facts, this Court is of the view that while deciding the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court has to adopt liberal approach, as the merit of this case should not be dismissed, as the threshold of the application, mainly on the technical ground such as limitation. 11. Considering all these facts, the present application is allowed and the delay of 125 days in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition is ordered to be condoned. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No._______ of 2025 12. Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.155 of 2025, the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition has been ordered to be condoned. Be registered. 13. Since, there are certain arguable points, involved in this case, as such, the present petition is ordered to be admitted. 14. Records of the learned First Appellate Court, as well as, the learned trial Court be requisitioned. CrMPST No.611 of 2025 15. By way of the present application, which has been filed, under Section 438(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner/ applicant has sought the suspension of order of sentence dated 21.07.2023, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 10.06.2024. 16. 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 and the applicant, who is presently lodged in Sub-Jail, Nurpur, is ordered to be released on bail, in this case, 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 40% 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 four weeks from today, which shall be in addition to the amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant. 17. Application is, thus, disposed of. 18. 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 10, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Gaurav Thakur) Judge