2025:CGHC:1824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 643 of 2012 Udhav Ram Sharma S/o Late Ram Ratan Sharma, aged about 67 years R/o Fundurdihari Ward No. 5, Near Water Tank, P.S: Gandhinagar, Tahsil: Ambikapur, District: Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus Harihar Vishwakrma S/o Jagdeo Mistri, aged about 67 years R/o Godhanpur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil: Ambikapur, District: Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 10.01 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2011 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District: Sarguja (C.G.) wherein, the applicant has been convicted and SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.10 17:22:49 +0530 sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 138 of NI Act, 1881 SI for 2 months and fine of Rs. 27,000/- (in default of payment of fine SI for two months additional) 2. The respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant, alleging therein that the applicant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for marriage of her daughter with a promise to repay the same, and in order to pay the loan amount, the applicant issued a cheque bearing No. 250316 amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. It is further alleged that the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement that there is ‘insufficient funds’. 3. Based upon the aforesaid complaint and evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate registered a Criminal Case No. 585/2009 under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the applicant/accused. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment and further directed to pay Rs. 26,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.09.2012, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the trial Court and maintained the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved therewith, the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that presently the applicant is aged about 81 years and is sick & bed ridden and during trial the applicant has remained in jail for 7 days i.e. from 28.09.2012 to 04.10.2012 and he is facing the lis since April 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Harihar Vishwakarma (complainant), the documents i.e. Ex.P/1 to P/6 and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct fact of finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 7 days, he is facing the lis since April 2008 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh