1 2025:CGHC:33424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 725 of 2025 Late Roopram Sen (Since Died), Represented Through Legal Heir - Sudhe Ram Sen (Son) Aged About 54 Years, R/o. Village - Birkoni, Police Station And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitoner versus Manish Kumar Maheshwari S/o. Bharat Bhushan Maheshwari Aged About 30 Years R/o. Ward No. 3, Tumgaon, Police Station And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) … Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may please to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the Petitioner. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the order dated 8/1/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. H-19/2023 (ANNEXURE-A-1) 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in favor of petitioner as it may deem fir and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen entitled to protection under the Constitution of India. As per the complaint, the petitioner’s late brother Hemnarayan owned agricultural land in Village Birkoni (Khasra Nos. 683/6, 691/2, 731/2, 832, 1013, 1607/2, and 1803/1). Due to urgent medical needs, he entered into an agreement on 03.04.2014 to sell the said land to the son of the accused, receiving ₹11,000 as advance with a condition to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance ₹4,98,000. Subsequently, part of the land was sold to the accused and part to Jyoti Stone Industries, through proprietor Jyoti (accused), who issued post-dated cheques including Cheque No. 043973 for ₹2,47,000 dated 10.06.2015. When this cheque was deposited in SBI Bagbahra, it was dishonoured by Axis Bank, Mahasamund on 22.08.2015 due to insufficient funds. After the cheque bounced, a legal notice was sent to the accused on 07.09.2015, but there was no response. Hence, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the 3 complainant Roopram, father of the deceased. Upon hearing both parties, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund convicted the accused, ordering payment of ₹3,60,000 as compensation and sentencing her to stand in court till rising of the court. After Roopram’s death during the pendency of the case, the present applicant being the legal heir submitted an affidavit under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which was accepted by the court. The accused challenged the judgment in appeal, where the appellate court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the compensation to ₹3,00,000. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H-19/2023, submits that the impugned order is unjust and legally unsustainable, as the appellate court, without assigning any cogent or valid reasons, arbitrarily reduced the compensation amount awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. The original order passed by the Magistrate was fair, proper, and well-reasoned in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering that the compensation awarded was already the minimum amount and not double the cheque amount as permissible under the law. The Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the complainant’s son had suffered due to the non-payment of the agreed amount, which led to his inability to receive timely medical treatment, ultimately resulting in his death. The appellate court neither provided sufficient justification nor addressed the material 4 findings of the trial court while reducing the compensation, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed seeking to restore the compensation amount awarded by the learned trial court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned appellate Court has rightly passed the order in accordance with law and the facts of the case, after duly appreciating the evidence placed on record. The complainant had clearly established that the cheque in question, amounting to ₹2,47,000, was issued by the accused towards part payment of the agreed sale consideration for agricultural land sold by the complainant’s late son. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment. The learned appellate Court after providing both parties an opportunity of hearing and considering the documentary and oral evidence, rightly affirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as has been imposed by the learned trial Court, and thereafter reduced the fine amount from Rs. 3,60,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-, and the same is just and reasonable in light of the financial and emotional hardship faced by the complainant’s family. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 recorded by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan