SATISH KUMAR BALYAN Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-422
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 20,2017

Satish Kumar Balyan Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mukhtar Ahmad, J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to remove/struck off illegal and arbitrary condition of depositing 50% of the compensation by the Lower Appellate Court while admitting the appeal for hearing.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are that a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 Jawahar Lal saying that he had given Rs. Ten lakhs to the applicant Satish Kumar Balyan for purchasing some land in Rasoolpur but he succeeded in getting the sale deed executed in his favour and thereafter on the protext he returned the amount of Rs. Ten lakhs to the opposite party no. 2 by a cheque dated 10.10.2012, which was deposited in the bank for encashment but it was dishonoured and returned uncashed. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 serve a notice and after non payment a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was preferred. That complaint was decided finally by judgment and order dated 14.10.2016 whereby the applicant Satish Kumar Balyan was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 N.I. Act for one year simple imprisonment. He was further directed to pay Rs.15.00 lakhs as compensation within two months and in default he was to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. To challenge that judgment and order a criminal appeal being No.267 of 2016 was preferred which was admitted and registered vide order dated 9.11.2016. He was provided bail but realization of the fine/compensation was stayed provided the appellant pay half of the amount within the period provided by the learned trial court. It further reveals that interim bail was granted to him by learned trial court but he did not comply the order of the appellate court nor he appeared before the court to file bail bonds and sureties nor deposited the money. Opposite party no. 2-respondent to the appeal moved application for compliance of the order of the appellate court and vide order dated 16.3.2017 non bailable warrant was issued against him. Now this application has been preferred challenging the condition of depositing half of the compensation imposed.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.