1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 284 of 2014 Farjan Khan S/o Late Shri Fauz Ahemad Khan Aged About 31 Years R/o.Vrindawan Colony, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar C.G., ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalur, District- Bastar C.G., 2. Ramesh Kumar Jain S/o. Shri Mishrilal Jain, For Bafna Trading Company Main Road Jagdalpur, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur Tah. Jagdalpur, District - Bastar C.G., ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Manisha Yadav and Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocates. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order of conviction passed by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.10 18:57:38 +0530 2 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Case No. 1799/2011, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short 'NI Act') and sentenced him to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, further, in default of payment of fine amount, 20 days of simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused purchased a vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. CG-04-E-9195 from the complainant. In consideration thereof, the accused/applicant paid Rs. 1,71,000/- in cash and issued a cheque bearing No. 5762555 dated 05/01/2000, drawn on the State Bank of Indore, Jagdalpur Branch, for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Thereafter, the said cheque was presented by the complainant on 16/05/2008 in his current account in the State Bank of India. However, the cheque was returned unpaid by the bank on 22/05/2008 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant, in connection with the dishonour of the cheque, sent information to the accused/applicant via registered post, which was received by the applicant on 05/06/2008. Upon non-payment of the amount by the applicant, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, on 22/06/2008. The trial court framed charges against the accused/applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar Jain as PW-1 and Jai Kumar 3 Jain as PW-2. In defence, the accused examined Zafar Parvez as DW-1. Hence, this revision. 3. 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 27 days of jail sentence, and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 4. It has also been informed by learned counsel for the applicant that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 01.07.2025, the parties have been referred before the Special Mediation Drive – Mediation “For the Nation”/Secretary, Mediation Cell, but the mediation has failed between the parties. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments 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 4 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 has 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 conviction is affirmed. 8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2012 and thereafter more than 12 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 27 days of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered 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 R.I. for six months under Section 138 of NI Act to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 27 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to 8,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Total enhanced fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him, within a period of 02 months from today before the trial Court concerned, and the same shall be paid to the Government Special School for Intellectually Retarded Girls, Gaganpur, Ambikapur (C.G.), failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 5 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned within a period of 48 hours for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti