1 2025:CGHC:23118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 778 of 2013 Vinod Mishra S/o Shri O.P.Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o. Satya Electrical Mungeli Naka, Thana-Civil Lines Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner/ Complainant Versus Saiyad Faisal Ali S/o . Late Shri Abrar Ali Aged About 36 Years R/o. Behind Balram Tokij, Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Other Address 1 - Oxford Auto Agency, Auto Dealer Standard Combine Pvt. Ltd. Tractor Division, Below Old Rto Office, Neharu Complex Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Oxford Campus, Oxford Trade Centre, D.C. Industrial Area, Tifra, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent/ Accused For Petitioner : Mr. Swayam Tembhuriya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. In this criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC, the petitioner/complainant is seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused/respondent and grant of compensation by challenging the judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No.216/2012 (Saiyad Faizal Ali & Ors. Vs. Vinod Mishra), affirming the judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.499/2012, whereby the learned JMFC has convicted the accused/respondent for offence under Section 138 of the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.06.20 15:28:39 +0530 2 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 petitioner/Complainant (herein after referred as Complainant) had instituted a complaint against the present accused/respondent (herein after referred as Accused), punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter-alia stating that the accused was well known and having with good relationship with him and on the same account the accused had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- 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. 142525 of the Account maintained at ICICI Bank Bilaspur,on demand of the said amount the accused had issued on dtd. 21.08.2006, but the same have become dishonoured while presenting the same for the encashment on dt. 06.02.2007 with the remarks of the insufficient amount in the same account, regarding which one demand notice were also been sent to the accused but the accused had not returned the amount of the said cheque, and thus the complainant had instituted by the complaint,against the accused, under the alleged act. 3. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and documents found the accused guilty for the offence aforementioned, against which, the accused prefers an appeal before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G), who has rejected the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur 3 (C.G.). Since the petitioner/complainant is dissatisfied with the sentence so awarded to the respondent/accused by the trial Court has preferred this revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused/respondent and grant of compensation. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law. The trial Court had failed to appreciate the material in its right perspective and prevented the petitioner/complainant from getting compensation for the proceedings initiated by him under the provision of NI Act. It is also submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the objects and reasons for incorporating the criminal provisions in the NI Act to enhance reliability or negotiable instruments in regular transactions. It is specifically stated that the trial Court as as well as the appellate Court has committed error of law in not awarding compensation to the complainant and also in awarding in awarding SI for 06 months only, which is on the lower side. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the complainant is entitled for compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant and prays for dismissal of this revision. 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 4 prosecution witnesses, has convicted the accused 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 accused, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused. 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 accused and affirming the conviction of the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, in the counter revision preferred by the respondent/accused being CRR-550- 2013, this Court has enhanced the fine amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.13,000/-, which is payable by the respondent/accused to the petitioner/complainant within a period of one month from today by reducing the jail sentence of the accused from 06 months SI to the period already undergone by him. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this revision and same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above, this revision preferred by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused/respondent and grant of compensation is dismissed. 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 vaishali