IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-50562-2024 in CRR No. 2635 of 2024 Date of decision: 08.05.2025 Seema ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. CRM-50562-2024 Prayer in this application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is for condoning the delay of 3121 days in filing the present criminal revision petition by the applicant-petitioner, challenging the order dated 19.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal filed by the applicant-petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 14.10.2011, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur in complaint bearing No. 111/2008, titled as Yogesh Kumar vs. Seema Arora, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), wherein she had been convicted under the said section and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present application are that the applicant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from respondent No. 2/complainant and to discharge her legally enforceable liability towards repayment of the loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 806526 dated 03.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. However, when the complainant presented the said cheque before his banker, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds on 04.12.2007. Despite issuance of a registered legal notice dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforesaid complaint.

3. On the basis of the preliminary evidence produced on record before the learned trial Court, process under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was issued against the applicant. She appeared before the learned trial Court and was served with notice of accusation. The complainant examined two witness, besides placing reliance on some documentary evidence and thereafter its evidence was closed.

4. The statement of the applicant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she abjured her guilt and claimed to be innocent. The defence as set up by the applicant was that she had issued a blank cheque in favour of the complainant, which had been misused by the complainant. In her defence, she examined two witnesses, apart from herself who appeared as DW-1.

5. After giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by both the sides and on appraising the entire evidence produced on record, the learned trial Court held the applicant guilty under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced her in the manner as mentioned above. The accused filed appeal before the learned first appellate Court, which was dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2014. However, despite dismissal of her appeal, the applicant did not surrender before the Court concerned and kept on absconding. In the year 2024, i.e. after a period of more than 10 years, she has filed the present petition laying challenge to the judgments passed by the Courts below. While noticing that the applicant was still absconding, this Court, vide order dated 19.12.2024, advised her to surrender before the Court concerned but she has not done so.

6. Along with the revision petition, the applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 3121 days in filing the revision petition. The only reason given in the application for condoning the deal is that since the applicant used to remain sick and was not keeping well, the counsel representing her before the Courts below did not inform her about dismissal of her appe