2026:JHHC:25649 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 884 of 2022 -------- Ankit Kumar Saw, aged about 34 years, son of late Santosh Kumar Saw, resident of Khaini Patti, PO & PS: Jharia, District-Dhanbad. … ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Sharma, son of late Ramesh Chandra Sharma, resident of Sijua No. 1, Sijua More, PO: Sijua, PS: Jogta, District: Dhanbad. … … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate -------- Order No.17/Dated: 25th August, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment dated 29.1.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020 was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for admitting the appeal for hearing on merits but due to paucity of fund the appellant could not deposit the said amount. Therefore, vide order dated 17.11.2021 the appeal was dismissed. Admittedly, no judgment on merits has been passed by the learned appellate Court. 3. It is further submitted that during pendency of this Revision 20% amount of the total compensation amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- as directed by the learned appellate court, has been deposited before the concerned court and, as such, a direction may be issued to the learned Appellate Court to restore the appeal in its original number and proceed further on merits. 4. O the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has fairly admitted that 20% of the compensation amount has been deposited after filing of this revision which has also been 2 withdrawn by the complainant. It is also fairly admitted that the appeal was disposed of only on technical ground for non-deposition of the statutory amount of 20% for admission of appeal. However, it is prayed that if the matter is being remitted to the concerned appellate court the same should be disposed of on priority basis within some time limit. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties and also in view of the fact that the Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020 has been dismissed without admission and hearing on merits due to non-deposition of the statutory amount of 20% of the total compensation amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, now admittedly, the compliance has been made, therefore, in the ends of justice Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020 appears to be heard on merits. 6. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal of appeal dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is hereby set-aside. 7. It is further directed that the Criminal Appeal be restored in its original number and after admission be heard and disposed of on merits without extending any unusual adjournments and preferably within three months from the date of restoration of the appeal. 8. The present Cr. Revision stands allowed. 9. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 10. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records (if any) be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated:25.08.2026 KNR Uploaded on:29.8.2026