IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.131 of 2008 Jaimal Singh @ Janrail Singh … Revisionist Versus Parveen Arora … Respondent Dated: March 19, 2009 Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 15.05.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2008, Parveen Arora Vs. Jaimal Singh. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for respondent and perused the entire material in file. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 22.4.2003, respondent issued two cheques to the revisionist amounting to Rs.75,000/- each. When these cheques were presented in the bank, the same were dishonored on 20.5.2003 with the remark “payment stopped by drawer”. After completing the necessary formalities, a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was lodged by the revisionist against the respondent. On that complaint, CJM, U.S. Nagar vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2007/5.12.2007 convicted and sentenced the respondent u/s 138 of the aforesaid Act and sentenced him to six months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.2,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year’s further R.I. was awarded. Against that judgment and order, respondent preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar being Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2008. On 4.1.2008, the appeal was admitted by Sessions Judge and the appellant/respondent was directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- and also on furnishing two reliable sureties each of the aforesaid amount to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate. It was further directed that on depositing of 50% of the amount by the respondent/ appellant before the concerned Magistrate’s court, rest 50% of the recovery shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal. Since inspite of the order dated 4.1.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar, neither the appellant-respondent deposited the fine nor he remained present in the court below, therefore, learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar vide order dated 4.4.2008 dismissed the appeal of the appellant-respondent. Thereafter on 13.5.2008, respondent-appellant moved an application before Sessions Judge with the prayer that he may be released on bail and he is ready to pay Rs.40,000/- out of the fine amount and the remaining amount would be paid by him within two months after his release on bail. The said application was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar vide order dated 15.5.2008 and by that order, the earlier order dated 4.4.2008, by which the appeal was dismissed, was set aside. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.5.2008, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in recalling/reviewing its earlier order dated 4.4.2008. I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. A perusal of the order dated 4.4.2008 shows that it was not a final order. Since the order dated 4.1.2008 was not complied with and even the appellant was not remained present in the court, hence the court below had dismissed the appeal. As per the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge has to decide the appeal on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the present case, the appeal was not decided on merit and that was dismissed in default of the respondent- appellant and by order dated 15.5.2008, learned Sessions Judge has just corrected his mistake in setting aside its earlier order dated 4.4.2008 as it was not a final order. For the reasons as recorded above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 15.5.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar. For the reasons as recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed as such. However, the Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar is directed to decide the appeal in question expeditiously without unreasonable delay. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court of Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar on 6.4.2009. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 19, 2009 Rajeev Dang