Dhirendra Prate Singh v. Prakash Gupta) in connecting Criminal Appeal No

1. Heard Shri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court entertained the present application on 19.09.2025 while issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2.

3. There is an office report dated 24.09.2024 which reads as under: "Notice issued to O.P. No. but the same is unserved as per report of Ld. CJM, Varanasi at flag 'A', stating that - "संबंिधत थाने के अनुसार िवप्षी करीब डे़ा माह पूवर् अपना मकान बेचकर सपिरवार कहीं अन्य्ऴ चले गये हैं। िवप्षी के बारे में कोई लाभ्ऺद जानकारी नहीं िमल सकी।"

4. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, thus, this Court has no option to proceed with the matter.

5. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 227 of 2025 (Dhirendra Prate Singh Versus Prakash Gupta) in connecting Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 86342 of 2022, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

6. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 7, Varanasi proceeded to Complaint Case No. 86342 of 2022 convicted the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the Act while sentencing him for simple imprisonment of six months and fine to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16.05.2024 against which the opposite party no. 2 2 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 02.04.2025 by the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention towards page 44 of the paperbook so as to contend that a Criminal Revision No. 2192 of 2025 has been preferred which is pending before this Court. An application thereafter came to be preferred by the applicant for release of the 20% of the amount being Rs. 2,02,000/- which came to be rejected on 03.07.2025 by the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024.

8. Questioning the same, the applicant has been filed the present application.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that once against the conviction of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the trial court, an appeal came to be preferred which has been rejected then the amount so deposited being 20% ought to have been released in favour of the applicant. He seeks to rely upon the provisions contained under subsection (3) of Section 148 of the Act so as to contend that the appellate court may direct to release the amount deposited by the applicant at the time of during the pendency of the appeal. He further submits that the court below has not considered the aspect of the matter.

10. Learned AGA submits that the entire issue is depending upon the fact as to what happened to the challenge raised to the appeal, however, he submits that the court below has not appreciated the provisions contained under subsection (3) of Section 148 of the Act.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

12. Apparently, post conviction of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the Act, an appeal came to be preferred which is stated to have been dismissed against which a criminal revision has been preferred which is pending. An application under Section 148(3) of the Act came to be preferred for release of the amount being 20% deposited by the applicant. However, the said application has been rejected. The order rejecting the said application is being quoted hereinunder: "्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 धीरेन््श ्ऺताप िसह की ओर से आपरािधक अपील संख्या 105/2024 में पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 02.04.2025 के पिर्ऺेष्य में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क मय शपथप्ऴ 5 क ्ऺस्तुत कर कहा गया है िक उपरो्व अपील माननीय न्यायालय ्षारा िदनांक 02.04.2025 को िनणर्त की जा चुकी है। माननीय 3 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 08.08.2024 के अनुपालन में अपीलाथर् ने अथर्दण्ड धनरािश का 20 ्ऺितशत मु० 2,02,000/- रूपया जिरए ्िेजरी चालान जमा कर िदया है। ्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 ने उपरो्व धनरािश मु० 2,02,000/- रूपया की वापसी हेतु बाउचर ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया था िजस पर सम्बिन्धत आख्या भी ्ऺाप्त हो चुकी है। अतः उपरो्व िस्थित में धनरािश मु० 2,02,000/-रूपया ्ऺाथर् के प्ष में अवमु्व करने की याचना की गयी है। िवप्षी की ओर से कोई आपि्त दािखल नहीं की गयी है। सुना व प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध ्ऺप्ऴों का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक इस न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश/िनणर्य िदनांिकत

02.04.2025 के ्षारा आपरािधक अपील संख्या 105/2024 व 85/2024 का िनस्तारण िकया जा चुका है। उ्व आदेश के अनुपालन में अिभयु्व ्षारा ्िेजरी चालान के माध्यम से कु ल अथर्दण्ड की धनरािश मु० 12,10,000/-रुपये का 20 ्ऺितशत अंकन 2,02,000/- रुपये जमा िकया गया है िजसका सत्यापन कोषागार, वाराणसी से कराया गया है व संलग्न प्ऴावली है। ्ऺत्यथर् ्षारा उ्व अथर्दण्ड की रािश मु0 2,02,000/- रुपये उसके प्ष में अवमु्व िकये जाने हेतु ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 उपरो्व ्षारा अिभयु्व ्ऺकाश गुप्ता की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योिजत ि्विमनल िरवीजन संख्या 2192/2005 Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another की के स स्टेटस िरपोटर् की कम्प्यूटरीकृ त कापी दािखल की गयी है जो वतर्मान में िवचाराधीन है। धारा 148 उपधारा 3 परा्वम्य िलखत अिधिनयम में ्ऺािवधािनत िकया गया है िक अपील न्यायालय अपील के लंिबत रहने के दौरान िकसी भी समय अपीलाथर् ्षारा जमा की गई रकम को पिरवादी को देने का िनदेश दे सके गाः "परन्तु यिद अपीलाथर् दोषमु्व कर िदया जाता है, तो न्यायालय पिरवादी को, आदेश की तारीख से साठ िदन के भीतर या पिरवादी ्षारा पयार्प्त कारण दिशत िकए जाने पर तीस िदन से अनिधक की ऐसी और अविध के भीतर, िजसका न्यायालय ्षारा िनदेश िदया जाए, सुसंगत िव्तीय वषर् के ्ऺारंभ पर भारतीय िरजवर् बैंक ्षारा यथा्ऺकािशत ्ऺचिलत बैंक दर पर ्िाज सिहत इस ्ऺकार दी गई रकम का अपीलाथर् को ्ऺितसंदाय करने का िनदेश देगा।" चू ंिक ्ऺकरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है, ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ उपरो्व की सुनवायी का अिधकार इस न्यायालय को नहीं है। उ्व िस्थित में ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क खािरज िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क तद्नुसार खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली बाद 4 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 आवश्यक कायर्वाही िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।"

13. Importantly, Section 148(3) of the Act itself provides that the appellate court may direct to release of the amount deposited by the appellant during the pendnecy of the appeal and with a proviso that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay the appellant, the amount so released with interest at the bank rate as prescribed by the RBI or the prevalent of the beginning of the financial year within 60 days. The consideration which weighed with the court below while rejecting the application preferred by the applicant does not seem to be in accordance with law, particularly, when mere pendency of the criminal revision against the appeal, without there being any positive order passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 cannot be ground to withhold the said payment. Since crucial aspect of the matter has not been considered, thus, in the fitness of the matter, the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi is set aside.

14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

15. It is expected that the court below shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law with most expedition.

16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court entertained the present application on 19.09.2025 while issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2.

3. There is an office report dated 24.09.2024 which reads as under: "Notice issued to O.P. No. but the same is unserved as per report of Ld. CJM, Varanasi at flag 'A', stating that - "संबंिधत थाने के अनुसार िवप्षी करीब डे़ा माह पूवर् अपना मकान बेचकर सपिरवार कहीं अन्य्ऴ चले गये हैं। िवप्षी के बारे में कोई लाभ्ऺद जानकारी नहीं िमल सकी।"

4. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, thus, this Court has no option to proceed with the matter.

5. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 227 of 2025 (Dhirendra Prate Singh Versus Prakash Gupta) in connecting Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 86342 of 2022, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

6. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 7, Varanasi proceeded to Complaint Case No. 86342 of 2022 convicted the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the Act while sentencing him for simple imprisonment of six months and fine to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16.05.2024 against which the opposite party no. 2 2 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 02.04.2025 by the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention towards page 44 of the paperbook so as to contend that a Criminal Revision No. 2192 of 2025 has been preferred which is pending before this Court. An application thereafter came to be preferred by the applicant for release of the 20% of the amount being Rs. 2,02,000/- which came to be rejected on 03.07.2025 by the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2024.

8. Questioning the same, the applicant has been filed the present application.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that once against the conviction of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the trial court, an appeal came to be preferred which has been rejected then the amount so deposited being 20% ought to have been released in favour of the applicant. He seeks to rely upon the provisions contained under subsection (3) of Section 148 of the Act so as to contend that the appellate court may direct to release the amount deposited by the applicant at the time of during the pendency of the appeal. He further submits that the court below has not considered the aspect of the matter.

10. Learned AGA submits that the entire issue is depending upon the fact as to what happened to the challenge raised to the appeal, however, he submits that the court below has not appreciated the provisions contained under subsection (3) of Section 148 of the Act.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

12. Apparently, post conviction of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the Act, an appeal came to be preferred which is stated to have been dismissed against which a criminal revision has been preferred which is pending. An application under Section 148(3) of the Act came to be preferred for release of the amount being 20% deposited by the applicant. However, the said application has been rejected. The order rejecting the said application is being quoted hereinunder: "्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 धीरेन््श ्ऺताप िसह की ओर से आपरािधक अपील संख्या 105/2024 में पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 02.04.2025 के पिर्ऺेष्य में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क मय शपथप्ऴ 5 क ्ऺस्तुत कर कहा गया है िक उपरो्व अपील माननीय न्यायालय ्षारा िदनांक 02.04.2025 को िनणर्त की जा चुकी है। माननीय 3 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 08.08.2024 के अनुपालन में अपीलाथर् ने अथर्दण्ड धनरािश का 20 ्ऺितशत मु० 2,02,000/- रूपया जिरए ्िेजरी चालान जमा कर िदया है। ्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 ने उपरो्व धनरािश मु० 2,02,000/- रूपया की वापसी हेतु बाउचर ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया था िजस पर सम्बिन्धत आख्या भी ्ऺाप्त हो चुकी है। अतः उपरो्व िस्थित में धनरािश मु० 2,02,000/-रूपया ्ऺाथर् के प्ष में अवमु्व करने की याचना की गयी है। िवप्षी की ओर से कोई आपि्त दािखल नहीं की गयी है। सुना व प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध ्ऺप्ऴों का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक इस न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश/िनणर्य िदनांिकत

02.04.2025 के ्षारा आपरािधक अपील संख्या 105/2024 व 85/2024 का िनस्तारण िकया जा चुका है। उ्व आदेश के अनुपालन में अिभयु्व ्षारा ्िेजरी चालान के माध्यम से कु ल अथर्दण्ड की धनरािश मु० 12,10,000/-रुपये का 20 ्ऺितशत अंकन 2,02,000/- रुपये जमा िकया गया है िजसका सत्यापन कोषागार, वाराणसी से कराया गया है व संलग्न प्ऴावली है। ्ऺत्यथर् ्षारा उ्व अथर्दण्ड की रािश मु0 2,02,000/- रुपये उसके प्ष में अवमु्व िकये जाने हेतु ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 उपरो्व ्षारा अिभयु्व ्ऺकाश गुप्ता की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योिजत ि्विमनल िरवीजन संख्या 2192/2005 Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another की के स स्टेटस िरपोटर् की कम्प्यूटरीकृ त कापी दािखल की गयी है जो वतर्मान में िवचाराधीन है। धारा 148 उपधारा 3 परा्वम्य िलखत अिधिनयम में ्ऺािवधािनत िकया गया है िक अपील न्यायालय अपील के लंिबत रहने के दौरान िकसी भी समय अपीलाथर् ्षारा जमा की गई रकम को पिरवादी को देने का िनदेश दे सके गाः "परन्तु यिद अपीलाथर् दोषमु्व कर िदया जाता है, तो न्यायालय पिरवादी को, आदेश की तारीख से साठ िदन के भीतर या पिरवादी ्षारा पयार्प्त कारण दिशत िकए जाने पर तीस िदन से अनिधक की ऐसी और अविध के भीतर, िजसका न्यायालय ्षारा िनदेश िदया जाए, सुसंगत िव्तीय वषर् के ्ऺारंभ पर भारतीय िरजवर् बैंक ्षारा यथा्ऺकािशत ्ऺचिलत बैंक दर पर ्िाज सिहत इस ्ऺकार दी गई रकम का अपीलाथर् को ्ऺितसंदाय करने का िनदेश देगा।" चू ंिक ्ऺकरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है, ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ उपरो्व की सुनवायी का अिधकार इस न्यायालय को नहीं है। उ्व िस्थित में ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क खािरज िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्/्ऺत्यथर् संख्या-2 की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 3 क तद्नुसार खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली बाद 4 NA528 No. 31844 of 2025 आवश्यक कायर्वाही िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।"

13. Importantly, Section 148(3) of the Act itself provides that the appellate court may direct to release of the amount deposited by the appellant during the pendnecy of the appeal and with a proviso that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay the appellant, the amount so released with interest at the bank rate as prescribed by the RBI or the prevalent of the beginning of the financial year within 60 days. The consideration which weighed with the court below while rejecting the application preferred by the applicant does not seem to be in accordance with law, particularly, when mere pendency of the criminal revision against the appeal, without there being any positive order passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 cannot be ground to withhold the said payment. Since crucial aspect of the matter has not been considered, thus, in the fitness of the matter, the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Varanasi is set aside.

14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

15. It is expected that the court below shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law with most expedition.

16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad