# i.) Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 590
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3150 of 2021
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/i-rajnesh-v-neha-and-another-2021-2-scc-324-47479
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Negotiable Instrument Act,1881-Section
138-applellate court dismissed the appeal
and has also cancelled the bail granted to
the
appellant-accused
during
the
pendency of appeal-accused granted bail
subject to condition that he will deposit
50% of the amount-After getting released
he moved an application for modification
of order which was rejected-appellate
court dismissed the appeal simply on the
1 All. Firoz Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
ground that accused failed to comply the
order-appeal has not been decided on
merits-the condition of depositing 50% of
the amount of fine was imposed in bail
during appeal, so the appeal itself cannot
be dismissed on this ground-the order
dismissing
the
appeal
suffers
from
manifest
illegality
and
cannot
be
sustained.(Para 1 to 8)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)

## Text

590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16.07.2014, in revision, the impugned order
was set aside. This shows that the journey
of the maintenance application started from
12.08.2010 and up till now no amount of
maintenance
has
been
paid
to
the
revisionist, which is very disgraceful.

11. Learned counsel appearing for
Pratima Singh submitted that in ex-parte
order dated 05.04.2011, Rs.2500/- awarded
as maintenance per month, although this
order has been set aside, later on, being exparte will not help Pratima Singh.

12. Learned counsel appearing for
revisionists has relied upon the following
judgments of the Supreme Court which are
as under :

i.)
Rajnesh
vs.
Neha
and
Another (2021) 2 SCC 324

ii.) Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan
Ali & Anr. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu
& Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021 SC
decided on 16th November, 2021, in which,
claim was awarded from the date of
petition in a motor accident claim. The
facts of the said case is not similar to this
case.

iii.) In Bina Devi Vs. State of
UP 2010 SCC OnLine All 236. The court
had held that maintenance is to be paid
from the date of application, the court
must record reasons. If the order is silent,
it will be effective from the date of order,
for which reasons need not be recorded.
The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C
is prima facie clear that maintenance shall
be payable from the date of the order.
Thus, this Court is of the view that
maintenance should be paid from the date
of the order not from the date of
application.

13. On the basis of above discussion,
this revisional court is of the opinion that
evaluation of finding of the trial court is not
suffering from any illegality manifest error.
Trial court has not overlooked the grounds
of maintenance and evidence, as such, no
interference is called for in the impugned
order by this revisional court. Both the
revisions are devoid of merit and is liable
to be dismissed.

14. Both Criminal Revision No. 2921
of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 2922 of
2018 are dismissed and impugned order
dated 18.04.2016 is confirmed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A590
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3150 of 2021

Firoz ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mukesh Joshi

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Negotiable Instrument Act,1881-Section
138-applellate court dismissed the appeal
and has also cancelled the bail granted to
the
appellant-accused
during
the
pendency of appeal-accused granted bail
subject to condition that he will deposit
50% of the amount-After getting released
he moved an application for modification
of order which was rejected-appellate
court dismissed the appeal simply on the
1 All. Firoz Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
ground that accused failed to comply the
order-appeal has not been decided on
merits-the condition of depositing 50% of
the amount of fine was imposed in bail
during appeal, so the appeal itself cannot
be dismissed on this ground-the order
dismissing
the
appeal
suffers
from
manifest
illegality
and
cannot
be
sustained.(Para 1 to 8)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision has been
filed against the impugned judgment and
order dated 27.10.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10,
Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.31 of
2021 (Firoz Vs. Mohd. Irfan & Others)
arising out of Case No.7723 of 2017 (Ifran
Vs. Firoz) under Section 138 of N.I. Act,
Police Station- Kanth, District- Moradabad.
By the impugned judgment and order,
learned Appellate Court has dismissed the
appeal and has also cancelled the bail
granted to appellant-accused during the
pendency of appeal.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that
on the complaint of opposite party no.2
revisionist(accused)
was
tried
under
Section 138 of N.I. Act in complaint case
no.7723 of 2017 (Ifran Vs. Firoz). After
conclusion of the trial revisionist(accused)
was held guilty for charge under Section
138 of N.I. Act and convicted and
sentenced
to
two
years
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,30,000/-
vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2021.
It was also directed that out of the fine,
complainant will be entitled to receive
Rs.1,25,000/-
as
compensation
and
remaining Rs.5,000/- will be deposited in
the State Head as fine. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid judgment and order of conviction
the revisionist(accused) filed a Criminal
Appeal No. 31 of 2021. The learned
Appellate Court admitted the appeal and
enlarged the revisionist (accused) on bail
subject to condition that he will deposit half
of the amount imposed as fine within a
month. Thereafter, revisionist (accused)
moved an application dated 25.05.2021
before the Appellate Court for modification
of the order dated 12.05.2021 to the extent
that a direction be issued to deposit 20% of
amount of fine instead of 50%. This
application was dismissed by the Appellate
Court vide order dated 19.07.2021 and
matter
was
posted
for
hearing
on
04.08.2021. By the impugned order dated
27.10.2021 the Appellate Court dismissed
the criminal appeal on the ground that
appellant (accused) has failed to comply
the order dated 12.05.2020 and deposit half
amount of fine.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
contended that in a similar matter between
the same parties, the Appellate Court while
admitting the appeal and enlarging the
accused(appellant) on bail has directed to
deposit 20% of amount of fine but in the
present case the Appellant Court has given
a direction to deposit 50% of amount of
fine. The appellant moved an application
before the Appellate Court to modify the
order in accordance with the order passed
in other Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2021
but the learned Appellate Court without
properly considering the matter rejected the
application.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant further contended that learned
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appellate Court has also dismissed the
appeal on the ground that 50% of amount
of fine as directed has not been deposited,
without affording any opportunity to the
appellant to submit arguments on the merits
of the appeal, hence the impugned order is
arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel also
submitted that revisionist(accused) is ready
and willing to deposit 50% of the amount
of fine as directed by the Appellate Court
vide order dated 12.05.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 submitted that revisionist(accused) was
enlarged on bail subject to condition that he
will deposit 50% of the amount of fine within
a month but after being set at liberty instead of
depositing fine while enjoying liberty he
moved an application for modification of the
aforesaid order just to linger the matter. This
application was also rejected by the Appellate
Court on 19.07.2021 but even then the
revisionist(accused)
has
not
made
any
compliance of the order dated 12.05.2021 and
misused his bail. Learned counsel further
contended that as revisionist(accused) is not in
jail, his prayer for bail cannot be considered..

6. It is undisputed that vide order dated
12.05.2021 revisionist(accused) was admitted
to bail subject to condition that he will deposit
50% of the amount of fine within a month.
After getting released the revisionist(applicant)
moved an application before the Appellate
Court to modify the aforesaid order which was
rejected. It is also clear from the perusal of the
impugned order that the Appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal simply on the ground that
accused/appellant has failed to comply the
order dated 12.05.2021 and to deposit amount
of fine as directed. The appeal has not been
heard and decided on merits. The condition of
depositing 50% of the amount of fine was
imposed in bail during appeal, so the appeal
itself cannot be dismissed on this ground. At
the most, Appellate Court can do was to
cancel his bail but the learned Appellate Court
has dismissed the appeal on this ground. So,
the impugned order dismissing the appeal
suffers from manifest illegality and cannot be
sustained. The revision is liable to be allowed.

7. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the revisionist that he is
ready to deposit 50% of the amount of fine it is
directed that if within 15 days from today the
revisionist (accused) appears before the
Appellate Court and shows his willingness to
deposit the amount in pursuance of the order
dated 12.05.2021 the Appellate Court will
permit him to deposit the amount of fine.
Failing which, the Appellate Court may
consider for cancellation of his bail during the
pendency of the appeal.

8. The Criminal Revision is allowed and
order dated 27.10.2021 is set aside. The
Appellate Court shall restore the appeal to its
original
number
and
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties will
decide the criminal appeal in accordance with
law.
----------
(2022)01ILR A592
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 169 of 2019

Avadh Ram Shukla Chela of Late Nirmal
Kumar Panigrahi ...Appellant
Versus

Viraganand Chela of Sri Sita Ram Das
Onkar Nath & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: