Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Yash Pal Verma - Petitioner
Vs.
Rotam Lal - Respondent
Cr.MMO No.245 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance with orders of the Appellate Court can result in the quashing of impugned orders and the enforcement of the Appellate Court's directives.
Headnote:
Notice - Criminal Appeal - The court held that in the peculiar facts of the case, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent-complainant in these proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-accused filed a Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence. The Appellate Court ordered the suspension of sentence, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner-accused failed to comply with the orders and sought an extension, which was granted. However, the Trial Court passed an impugned order stating that the warrant of commitment cannot be recalled, resulting in the petitioner-accused being deprived of the right to be enlarged on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to ensure the implementation of the orders passed by the Appellate Court, thereby allowing the petitioner-accused to be enlarged on bail.
Issues: Non-compliance with orders of the Appellate Court, deprivation of the right to be enlarged on bail, and the recall of the warrant of commitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order passed by the Trial Court amounted to non-compliance with the orders of the Appellate Court, resulting in the deprivation of the petitioner-accused's right to be enlarged on bail.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
In the peculiar facts of the case, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent-complainant in these proceedings.
2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner-accused [Yash Pal Verma] in Criminal Case No.316-3 of 2024/2020, decided on 18.01.2024 [Annexure P-1], whereby, the complaint was allowed and the petitioner-accused was convicted and was fastened with the liability of Rs.3,20,000/- [Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand], with default clause also.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2024, the petitioner-accused filed a Criminal Appeal before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla [H.P.] [Annexure P-2]. Alongwith the Criminal Appeal, an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, praying for suspension of sentence. In the aforesaid application for suspension of sentence, the Learned Appellate Court i.e. the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla [H.P.], on 28.02.2024, ordered the suspension of sentence, subject to depositing Rs.75,000/- [Rupees Seventy Five Thousand] and furnishing a personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand] to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court, within one month from the date of passing of the aforesaid orders.
4. In terms of the orders passed by the Learned Appellate Court i.e. the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla [H.P.], on 28.02.2024, the period of one month had elapsed on 28.03.2024, but the petitioner-accused could not comply with the orders by neither depositing the compensation amount nor in furnishing personal and surety bonds as per the mandate.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused had filed an application, seeking extension of time to implement the orders dated 28.02.2024 and this prayer of the applicant-accused was accepted by the Learned Appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla [H.P.], on 01.04.2024 [Annexure P-4], whereby, the petitioner-accused was permitted to deposit the compensation amount and to furnish the personal bond and surety bond within thirty days.
6. Though, in terms of the orders dated 01.04.2024 [Annexure P-4] passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner was to deposit due amount of Rs.75,000/- and also to deposit the personal bond and surety bond within thirty days and this period of thirty days was to elapse on 01.05.2024; but, by ignoring the mandate of the Learned Appellate Court, supra, the Learned Trial Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla [H.P.], had passed an order on 02.04.2024 [Annexure P-6], referred to as the impugned order, stating that once the warrant of commitment has been prepared on 01.04.2024, therefore, the same cannot be recalled. This stand of the Learned Trial Court on the pretext of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply, in facts of instant case, where the order passed by the Learned Trial Court was interdicted by the Learned Appellate Court. Moreover, Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can apply where judgment or final order disposing of the case was issued and once the issuance of warrant of commitment on 01.04.2024 does not amount to passing of judgment or final order disposing of a case, then, in peculiar facts of this case, the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court on 02.04.2024 [Annexure P-6] certainly amounts to non-compliance of the orders of the Learned Appellate Court; and the impugned order results in depriving the petitioner-accused of the right to be enlarged on bail on the mandate of the orders passed by Learned Appellate Court on 01.04.2024 [Annexure P-4, referred to above.
7. Without commenting further; and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 [Annexure P-6] passed by Learned Trial
