1 2025:CGHC:23119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 551 of 2013 1 - Saiyad Faisal Ali S/o . Late Shri Abrar Ali Aged About 36 Years R/o.Nehru Nagar, Gandhinagar, Bilaspur, P.S., Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Other Address- (1) Oxford Auto Agency, Auto Dealer Standard Combine Pvt.Ltd. Tractor Division, Below Old R.T.O Office, Neharu Complex Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur C.G. (2) Oxford Campus, Oxford Trade Centre, D.C. Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Vinod Mishra S/o O.P.Mishra Aged About 40 Years Through Satya Electrical, R/o.Mungeli-Naka Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No.217/2012 (Saiyad Faizal Ali Vs. Vinod Mishra), affirming the judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Case VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.06.16 17:07:21 +0530 2 No.498/2012, whereby the learned JMFC has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo SI for six months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondent/complainant has instituted a complaint against the present accused, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, interalia stating that the accused was well known and having good relationship with him and on the same account the accused had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for his personal needs and thereby the complainant had advanced him the same amount, and the accused had promised to return by the Cheque bearing No. 4356287 of the account maintained at Dena Bank, Bilaspur on demand of the said amount the accused had issued on dated 25.09.2006 but the same have become dishonored while presenting the same for the encashment on dated 06.02.2007 with the remarks of the insufficient amount in the same account, regarding which one demand notice was also been sent to the accused but the accused had not returned the amount of the said cheque thus, the complainant made complaint against the accused under the alleged act. 3. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and documents found the applicant guilty for the offence aforementioned, against which, the applicant prefers an appeal before the 3 learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G), who has rejected the appeal of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G.). Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of SI for six moths and fine of Rs.10,000/- to the applicant. He has faced criminal trial since 2012, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 16-17 days of jail sentence as the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.498/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 29.08.2013. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly 4 convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records 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 the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NIA and sentenced to undergo SI for six months and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the applicant and affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the criminal trial commenced on 14.03.2007 which continued till 27.12.2012 and though the appeal also continued for 1 year and even this revision petition was pending since 24.08.2013 and, as such, from the date of commencement of trial, more than 22 years has been elapsed and considering that the applicant has already undergone 16-17 days of jail sentence as the ASJ, Bilaspur has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded 5 by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.498/2012 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 29.08.2013, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered/undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from SI for six months under Section 138 of the NIA to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 16-17 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.13,000/- under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to the sole respondent. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G). Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 10.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 vaishali