125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-14642-2026 in/and CRR-885-2026 Date of Decision:21.07.2026 Baldev Singh …Petitioner Vs. The Fatehabad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Branch Hanspur, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager and Anr. …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Sukhvir Singh Sahu, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr.DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The applicant/petitioner has moved the present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the present revision petition before this Court. 2. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was order to be dismissed and judgment & order dated 08.05.2023, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad was affirmed, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced, accordingly. HITESH 2026.07.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-14642-2026 in/and CRR-885-2026 -2 3. Along with the main revision petition, the applicant/petitioner has also moved the present application for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a 60 years of old villager and was not able to keep a track the Court proceedings and only relied upon the advise given by his counsel. At the time of disposal of his appeal by the Appellate Court, neither his counsel appeared before the Appellate Court nor he was informed about the date of hearing or the progress of the case by his counsel. Ultimately, vide the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2025, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Due to his absence, the Appellate Court also directed the Trial Court to issue warrants of arrrest against the present petitioner. He further contends that on 21.02.2026, he visited his counsel to enquire about the status of criminal appeal and to seek his advise on some related matter. At that time, his counsel informed him that his appeal already stood dismissed by the Appellate Court on 03.10.2025. Thereafter, he collected the copies of the impugned judgments and preferred the revision petition before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner at length and perused the record carefully; with his able assistance. 6. In the present case, it is apparent that the during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, appellant as well as his counsel stopped appearing before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also noted in Para- 11 of the impugned judgment that time and again notices and warrants were issued for securing the presence of the appellant i.e. the present appellant, but to HITESH 2026.07.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-14642-2026 in/and CRR-885-2026 -3 no avail and ultimately, the Court was left with no other option, but to decide the appeal on merits in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P, 1996(3) RCR (Criminal),201, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that in case, the appellant and his lawyer chose to remain absent on the date of final hearing, the Appellate Court has to dispose of the appeal on merits by perusing the reasoning of the Trial Court in the judgment on record. It was further held that the Court cannot dismiss the appeal for default or non-prosecution. Consequently, the Appellate Court decide the appeal on merits after perusing the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 7. From the record, it is also apparent that despite specific directions by the Appellate Court, the present petitioner (who was the appellant before the Appellate Court) chose not to appear and in view of his conduct, he is not entitled to claim any equitable relief from this Court as well. Even, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the present case was instituted by the complainant on 15.11.2018 and the matter remained pending before the Trial Court for almost four and half years. Thereafter, the present petitioner was successful in delay the proceedings before the Appellate Court for more than two years and now, again he has filed the present revision petition after a delay of 96 days, without any valid explanation. Thus, the present application deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 8. Apart from that, the petitioner had not surrendered in compliance of the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “ Daulat Singh Vs. HITESH 2026.07.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-14642-2026 in/and CRR-885-2026 -4 The State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) Diary No.(s).20900/2024, the present revision petition is not maintainable before this Court. 9. In view of the above, application for condonation of delay as well as the main revision petition are ordered to be dismissed. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 21.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh