1 2025:CGHC:2331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 746 of 2011 • Dilharan Lal Kaiwartya, S/o Bachacha Ram Kaiwartya, R/o Village Parsada, Ved Post Tikari, P.S. and Tahsil Masturi, Distt.-Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus • Chattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Maryadit, Through – Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Maryadit, Branch, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District – Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 14.01.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.191/11 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.17 17:40:22 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant obtained loan of Rs.85,000/- from the complainant and in this regard the applicant issued post dated cheque bearing number 970392. when the said cheque was produced before the bank, the same got dishonoured. Thereafter, notice was sent to the applicant, thereafter, complainant has filed a complaint against the applicant and then the police registered offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.). The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced him R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo further S.I. for one month. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2011 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since year 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years. Applicant has remained in jail since 07.12.2011 to 21.12.2011 i.e. he remained in jail for a period of 15 days, and therefore, he may be sentenced to the 3 period already undergone by him. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the evidence of Bhupesh Chandravanshi (PW-01), Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, and further considering the other evidence and materials available on record, I am of the view that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicant as such. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 8. As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that Applicant has remained in jail for 15 days and he is facing the lis since year 2008 i.e. for more than 16 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the Appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash