IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev.No.26 of 2008. Date of Decision: 26.5.2010. _______________________________________________ M.R.Sharma. ….Petitioner. Versus Rajiv Paul ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the petitioner : Mr. N.K.Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent-1. :Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate . Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court records that during the pendency of the appeal on 10.9.2007, a statement has been made by him to the effect that he will pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Again on 29.11.2007, he made a statement in the Court that he will make the entire payment of the cheque amount before the next date which was fixed for 19.2.2008 failing which the appeal filed by him be dismissed. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. It is on record that he did not deposit the amount and accordingly his appeal was dismissed. The petitioner should have been made aware about the fact that the statement entailed penal consequences which included imprisonment also. The life and liberty of a citizen cannot be deprived save and except by due process of law. The learned court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show that his inability was for reasons beyond his control or for some other reason. 3. A submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the revision petition only prays for time for depositing the money and does not seek quashing of the order passed in an appeal. This submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that the petition has been instituted under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prayer clause seeks quashing of the order. 4. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 14th June, 2010. A further direction is issued to the learned Sessions Judge to conclude the entire appeal within a period of two months from the date when the parties first put in appearance. This order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the respective merits of the case. 3 5. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 26, 2010(R)