1 2025:CGHC:2705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 43 of 2015 Sukhram Dhurve S/o Late Sitaram Dhruve Aged About 46 Years R/o 36/2, C-Rishali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shabbir Ali S/o Masrin Ali R/o MIG Hudco, Bhilai, Police Station Sector-6, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. 2 - State Of C.G. Through District Magistrate, Durg C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 15.01.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.191/2014, affirming the judgment dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Judicial AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.16 19:40:44 +0530 2 Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.2409/2011, whereby the learned JMFC, Durg has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act and sentenced to undergo SI for 2 months and fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 15 days. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant and the applicant were well-acquainted with each other. The applicant needed Rs. 45,000/- for business purposes and requested a loan from the complainant on July 13, 2010. The complainant provided the requested amount, which was to be repaid by the applicant through a cheque. However, when the complainant presented the cheque at the Central Bank of India for clearance, it was dishonored on October 16, 2010, due to insufficient funds in the applicant's account. A notice was sent to the applicant through his advocate on November 10, 2010, but the amount was not returned. The complainant then filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking the return of the amount and punishment under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., along with an affidavit requesting double the amount to be paid. The complainant filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which was registered as Case No. 2409/2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the trial was completed, the trial Court convicted the applicant/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed, the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction 3 and sentence of applicant awarded by the trial Court, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 2 months and the applicant has already suffered 5 days of jail sentence. He further submits that the applicant has already deposited fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of Rs.60,000/- imposed upon him by the learned trial Court and he is ready to deposit the balance amount of Rs.45,000/-. He also submits that considering the age of applicant at present who is aged about 55 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2010 to 2014 and thereafter more than 13 years have been elapsed, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that both the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo 2 months SI with fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of payment of fine to 4 further undergo SI for 15 days. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has affirmed the aforementioned conviction and sentence. 7. Considering the findings given by the trial Court as well as the 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 awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has faced criminal trial since 2010 till 2014 and thereafter more than 13 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 2 months and the applicant has already suffered 5 days of jail sentence, 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 2 months under 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 5 days of jail sentence. So far as fine part is concerned, the applicant has already deposited Rs.15,000/-, he is directed to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.45,000/- within a period of three months from today. Failing which, he shall undergo jail sentence as has been awarded by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 5 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 Akhil