1 2025:CGHC:32973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 550 of 2024 Dilip Kesharwani S/o Shyam Kesharwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Nagar Panchayat, Ujjain Boot House Lormi, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Satyaprakash Shukla S/o Tilak Prasad Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 04 Lormi, Tahsil And P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.40/2022 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District – Mungeli (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 23/2017, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to pay fine amount RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of Rs. 2,30,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondent for his business purpose. The applicant issued a cheque bearing No. 095387 on 16.06.2016 which got dishonored on 12.09.2016 on the ground of improper/insufficient/different signature. The aforesaid factual scenario led to filing of a complaint case against the applicant by the respondent. After conducting trial, the learned trial court convicted the applicant under Section 138 of NI Act and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 1 year and had also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Against the order of the trial Court the applicant preferred an appeal wherein it was specifically pleaded that the transaction between the parties was for Rs. 30,000/- and in lieu of the same an amount of Rs. 67-68,000/- was already paid to the respondent and also a blank cheque was issued, which the respondent tried to misutilize it by entering a higher amount. The learned appellant Court while deciding the appeal of the applicant has stated the applicant has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act and Section 20 of NI Act and set-aside the conviction of 1 year RI imposed by the trial Court and the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal imposing the fine amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that the appellate Court has imposed the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- upon the applicant, and out of which the applicant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of 2 months. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would strongly support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,30,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for one month. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant has deposited Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent/non-applicant out of fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and he is ready to pay the remaining amount, furthermore, the FIR on the incident was lodged in the year 2016 and thus, more than 9 years have been elapsed, therefore, the applicant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of two months from today failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned Trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar