Office Notes,

reports, orders or

S N L o . Date p d r ir o e c c e t e i d on in s g a s n o d r COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

Registrar’s order with Signatures

CRLR No.41 of 2026

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Ms. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the revisionist.

2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2 of 2026)

3. There is a delay of 41 days in filing the present

criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the State does not want to file any

objection to the delay condonation application.

5. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, a case is made out in

favour of the revisionist to condone the delay.

6. Delay of 41 days in filing the criminal revision is

hereby condoned.

7. Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed.

Exemption Application (IA No.1 of 2026)

8. An exemption application has been filed by the revisionist for exempting her to surrender before the trial court only on the ground of her age i.e., 86 years and

ailment and that she is bed ridden.

9. The ground taken by the counsel for the revisionist in the exemption application appears to be sound, therefore,

exemption application is allowed.

CRLR No.41 of 2026

10. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2020, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, in Criminal Case No.236 of 2008, State Vs. Nasreen Sanga, whereby she was convicted under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and was sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000/-

and was sentenced one month simple imprisonment in lieu of fine under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC each as well as judgment and order dated 28.08.2025, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2020, Nasreen Sanga Vs. State, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed for non prosecution.

11. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2020 was dismissed for non prosecution and as per law a criminal appeal should not have been dismissed in default and rather it should have been decided on merits only.

12. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist.

13. Admit.

14. Sent for T.C.R.

Bail Application (IA No.3 of 2026)

15. Today learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant would press for the bail application

16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/applicant is an 86 years old ailing woman who is bed ridden and is in dire need of treatment for which bail is required.

17. She further submits that the revisionist/applicant has been convicted for a period of three years with a fine of ₹

5,000/-.

18. On merits she made the same submission which she 19. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the