VARUN PURI v. SHYAM KISHAN SARAF

Mr. Mohit Mathur Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan, Ms Mannat Singh, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Thakur, Mr. Kratikey Goel and Mr. Abhyudai Mehrotra, Advocates in CRL. REV.P.(NI) 89/2026 & CRL. REV.P.(NI) 90/2026 Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Advocate in CRL. REV.P.(NI) 192/2026 & CRL. REV.P.(NI) 193/2026, CRL. REV.P.(NI) 189/2026, CRL. REV.P.(NI) 191/2026 For the Respondent: Mr. Subhash Garg with Mr. Zain Haider, Advocates with Mr. Shyam Kishan Saraf in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT MANOJ JAIN, J

#1. All these six petitions, being connected, are being disposed of by this common order.

#2. Let me narrate the factual matrix, albeit, in brief.

#3. Two separate complaints were filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of NI Act1. Complaint Case No. 463235 of 2016 was filed by Sh. Shyam Kishan Saraf and Complaint Case No. 469261 of 2016was by his father Sh. Banwari Lal Saraf. These were against four accused persons i.e. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Raman Puri (Managing Director), Sh. Varun Puri and Sh. Vikram Puri (Directors).

#4. Though the facts are almost similar and identical, for reference purpose, the Court would refer to the pleadings and orders related to 1Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 CRL. REV. P. (NI) 89/2026 & other connected Revision Petitions complaint filed by Sh. Shyam Kishan Saraf.

#5. The complainant had given a loan of Rs.1.50 crores to the accused Company and in lieu thereof, a cheque was issued. Such cheque, when presented, returned dishonoured with remarks “insufficient funds”. Since issuance of legal notice did not yield any result, complaint was filed against all the abovesaid accused persons. On the basis of averments made in the complaint and after perusal of pre-summoning evidence, all the accused were summoned. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C.2 was served upon them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant was cross- examined by defence at post-summoning stage. He did not examine anyone else. Accused, in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that the complainant had already been compensated in lieu of the cheque in question, which had merely been given as security and, thus, there was no existing legal liability. They also moved application under section 315 Cr.P.C. and entered into witness box to prove their such defence.

#6. Learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 08.04.2019 held all of them guilty for offence punishable under section 138 read with Section 142 of NI Act.

#8. It also pronounced order on sentence, same day i.e. 08.04.2019. Sh. Raman Puri, Sh. Varun Puri and Sh. Vikram Puri were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to conjointly pay fine equivalent to twice the amount of the cheque. It was also ordered that in default of payment of such fine/compensation, they would undergo Simple Imprisonment of 90 days each. As far as accused company was concerned, 2Criminal Procedure Code 1973 CRL. REV. P. (NI) 89/2026 & other connected Revision Petitions it was directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

#9. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the accused were not present in the court at the time of pronouncement of sentence, albeit, they were represented by their counsel. They were directed to pay compensation within ten days and were given time till 10.04.2019 to surrender. This was despite the fact that no application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. had been moved by accused and as noticed already, there was substantive sentence as well.

#10. Feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid order of conviction and sentence awarded in said complaint filed by Sh. Shyam Kishan Saraf, all the accused filed appeal which was registered as Crl.A.192/2019.

#11. Such appeal has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court on

31.01.2020.

#12. In relation the other complaint made by Sh. Banwari Lal Saraf, the judgment is of the same date i.e. 08.04.2019. The slight difference is with respect to the cheque amount as in such other complaint, there were two cheques, one of Rs. 1.5 crores and the other of Rs. 2,02,500. The compensation/fine amount is proportionately double, while substantive sentence remains the same. Accused filed appeal against such conviction also, which was registered as Crl. Appeal No. 193/019 and such appeal has also been dismissed on 31.01.2020.

#13. The present Revision Petitions take exception to such dismissal of appeals.

#14. Evidently, there is inordinate delay of more than 2100 days in filing all these Revisions Petitions.

#15. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with CRL. REV. P. (NI) 89/2026 & other connected Revision Petitions Section 528 BNSS 20233 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

#16. It is averred therein that the Revisionists were implicated in multiple FIRs which emanated from builder-buyer disputes and registration of all such cases led to financial crisis. According to revisionists, around 58 cases related to cheque-bouncing complaints and 80 FIRs were lodged against them and they could not effectively pursue and defend all such matters and were declared proclaimed offenders in multiple cases. They claimed that they were arrested in October, 2024 and are in custody since then. It is averred that their „newly appointed legal team‟ prepared list of all cases and then it came to fore that the appeals in question had been dismissed on

31.01.2020. They filed applications seeking their „voluntary surrender‟ on

17.01.2026 and were produced before the learned Trial Court. They were taken into custody on 30.01.2026, to serve out remainder of the sentence in relation to abovesaid two complaints.

#17. Sh. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the Revisionist submits that the accused, who are in custody since 30.01.2026, have a very strong case on merits and if delay in filing the Revision Petitions is not condoned, it would result in serious prejudice to them. He states that when substantial justice and technical objections are pitted against each other, the court should lean towards dispensation of substantial justice, particularly when matter involves someone‟s life and liberty. Sh. Mohit Mathur also supplements that the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Court are without any application of judicial mind and devoid of any reasoning. He states that despite the fact that learned Appellate Court had noted down all the relevant points agitated in the appeals, it failed to advert to even one. He 3Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 CRL. REV. P. (NI) 89/2026 & other connected Revision Petitions states that none of the grounds have been addressed and in a very cursory and vague manner, the appeals have been dismissed, with one stroke of line. He also states that the learned Trial Court was fully aware that the appellants had already been declared proclaimed offenders and, in such a situation, there was no hurry or requirement of deciding the appeals, that too, in absentia as it defeats the basic principle of natural justice i.e. no one should be condemned unheard. He does admit that the appeals had been filed by them and were not pursued appropriately but adds that since, in the interregnum, the appellants had already been declared proclaimed offenders, these could have been taken up only once the appellants had been re- arrested. He agitates that if at all the Appellate Court was desirous of disposing of the same on merits, it should have appointed Amicus Curiae. During arguments, learned Counsel for revisionists, even, volunteered to deposit 25% of the fine amount with the learned Trial Court, if the appeals are directed to be re-heard.

#18. All such contentions have been refuted by the complainant Sh. Shyam Kishan Saraf, who has argued in person for himself as well as for his father. Sh. Subhash Garg, learned Counsel has also addressed arguments from their side.

#19. According to Sh. Shyam Kishan Saraf, the present petitions are wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit and need to be dismissed outrightly. He contends that the delay in question is not a small one but is of huge period of around six years and it has not been explained in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, the accused, with impunity, kept on evading law and did not, intentionally and deliberately, participate in the legal proceedings and failed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court CRL. REV. P. (NI) 89/2026 & other connected Revision Petitions and were, therefore, declared Proclaimed Offenders. According to him, they kept on hiding and concealing themselves at unknown places and since their conduct demonstrates complete lack of bonafide and apathy for Rule of law, the delay does not deserve to be condoned. He submits that such discretionary power of condonation should not be exercised in favour of a litigant who has no respect for the justice delivery system and who shows unabated disregard to the majesty of the Court. He relies upon P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another4, Lanka Vanketeswarlu (Dead)by LRS vs. State of Andhra Pradesh And Others5and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer6.

#20. Sh. Saraf also submits that, even otherwise, while considering any such revision petition, the Court is merely required to see whether there is any jurisdictional error or not and, therefore, it is not permissible for such Court to reappreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. He asserts that this Court should not come to the rescue of those who are guilty of laches and complete inaction and who dared to abscond after conviction. He contends that the learned Appellate Court was justified in disposing of the appeals on merits when there was no representation from the side of the appellants. Relying on Bani Singh v. State of U.P.7, it is argued that there was no legal compulsion or obligation to have appointed any Amicus Curiae before disposing of the appeals. He submits that learned Appellate Court had called for the Trial Court record and had gone through the same and since it did not find any illegality or irregularity, the detailed discussion was not required