1 2025:CGHC:42165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 686 of 2024 Balaram Lodhi S/o Shri Kapoorram Lodhi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Deori, Police Station And Tehsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Now District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai) (C.G.) (Name And Particulars Of Appllicant Are Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant versus Ashish Jain S/o Shri Jawarilal Jain, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Pandadah, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, (Now District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai) (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 04.12.2021, passed by Shri S.L. Navratna learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon, (Now District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai) (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 09/2019, whereby the learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Magistrate, Khairagarh, in Criminal Case No. 249/2017 dated 22.06.2019, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo 06 months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- to the respondent, in default of payment of compensation, additional simple imprisonment of 02 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, a shopkeeper from village Pandadah, entered into an agreement on 20.03.2015 with the accused, a farmer of village Deori, for purchase of 0.80 dismil of land bearing Khasra No. 17/3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, wherein Rs. 80,000/- was paid as earnest money under a notarized agreement to sell. On 20.04.2016, when the accused expressed inability to execute the sale deed due to family objections, he returned Rs. 5,000/- in cash and issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- bearing No. 701191 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Khairagarh. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, whereafter the complainant served a statutory notice and subsequently filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 22.06.2019 in Criminal Case No. 249/2017, convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 90,000/-, in default to further two months’ imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 09/2019 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, wherein 3 his sentence was suspended on 17.07.2019 on assurance of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the matter was compromised in Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021 on similar terms. As the applicant failed to honour the compromise, the appellate court, upon application of the complainant, issued warrant of arrest and cancelled the suspension of sentence, thereby affirming the conviction on 29.10.2021. It is the case of the applicant that the complainant failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt, the source of alleged funds, or any supporting documentary evidence, and that the conviction is based solely on presumption. The applicant, having been arrested and sent to jail on 12.06.2024 pursuant to the appellate court’s order, has therefore preferred the instant revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already undergone about 40 days of jail sentence, and compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 5. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondent and would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the convictions are affirmed. 8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant/accused is facing the criminal trial since 2016 and more than 08 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant/accused at present and further considering that the applicant/accused has already undergone 40 days of jail sentence, and compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- has already been deposited by him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant/accused in jail again as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant/accused, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. Ordered accordingly. 5 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. However, complainant/respondent is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court for withdrawing the said compensation amount. 11. 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 Rahul dewangan