1 2025:CGHC:46226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 181 of 2015 Harendra Prasad Sharma S/o Bitori Sharma Aged About 48 Years Proprietor M/s Mahavir Industries Corporation, Road No. 5, B-9 Block, Industrial Area, Bhanpuri Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. R/o B-19, Housing Board Colony, Madhav Rao Sapre Nagar Beergaon, Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus M/s Agrasen Iron And Steels Private Limited Through Director, Neelesh Agrawal, S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal, R/o Av. D.D. 36, Kabir Nagar Phase-1 Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 155/13 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) whereby, the learned appellate Court partially allowed the appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after refer as ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to under go simple imprisonment for 01 year with compensation/fine of Rs. 12,27,257/-, in default of payment of fine, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.16 13:35:26 +0530 2 06 months of simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case were that the complainant carried on business at Raipur under the name and style of “M/s. Agarsen Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.” and had business relations with the accused, who from time to time purchased goods from the complainant. Towards part payment for the goods purchased, the accused issued two cheques drawn on the United Bank of India, Raipur—Cheque No. 625767 dated 25.07.2011 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs) and Cheque No. 625768 dated 25.07.2011 for an amount of Rs. 6,27,257/- (Six Lakhs Twenty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Seven only). The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through the State Bank of India, Raipur (C.G.), but the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Intimation of dishonour was received on 27.07.2011. Thereafter, the complainant issued a registered notice dated 03.08.2011, which was duly served upon the accused on 05.08.2011. However, despite receipt of the said notice, the accused failed to make payment of the cheque amounts. 3. Thus, the accused, with dishonest intention, had issued cheques which were liable to be dishonoured, thereby committing fraud. Hence, within the prescribed period, the complainant filed the complaint and prayed that the same be admitted and the accused be punished with imprisonment and fine. Accordingly, an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was registered against the accused. 4. The learned Trial Court recorded the evidence adduced by the complainant and, after appreciating the material on record, convicted the applicant vide order dated 09.07.2013 in Complaint Case No. 658/2011 under Section 138 of the NI Act. The applicant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and, under Section 357 of 3 the Cr.P.C., was directed to pay a fine/compensation of Rs. 12,27,257/-, with a further direction that in default of payment of fine, he should undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 5. Thereafter, against the aforesaid judgment, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 155/2013 before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence by directing the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with compensation/fine of Rs. 12,27,257/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 01 year and the applicant has already suffered more than 12 days of jail sentence and also willing to deposit the compensation/fine amount as has been imposed by the trial Court as well as maintained by the learned Appellate Court. He further submits that considering age of the applicant, at present who is aged about 58 years, and as he has been facing criminal trial since 2011 and thereafter more than 13 years have been elapsed, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as appellate and records with utmost circumspection. 9. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the appellate Court, after considering the material available on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, modified the order passed by the learned trial Court. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and sentenced the 4 applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with compensation/fine of Rs. 12,27,257/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 10. Considering the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in partly allowing the appeal by reducing the sentence from simple imprisonment for two years to simple imprisonment for one year, while maintaining the compensation/fine amount of Rs. 12,27,257/-, with a further direction of six months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 11. Now, considering the question of sentence, this Court takes into account that the applicant has faced the rigours of criminal trial commencing from 05.09.2011, which culminated in conviction on 09.07.2013, and more than twelve years have passed since then. The long passage of time, coupled with the age of the applicant at present, persuades this Court to adopt a lenient view. It is also noted that although the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is one year’s simple imprisonment, he has already undergone incarceration for more than twelve days. The applicant has further expressed readiness to deposit the entire fine/compensation amount but has prayed for some reasonable time to do so. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose is served by directing the applicant to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment after such a long lapse of time, especially when he has already suffered the ordeal of prolonged criminal litigation for over a decade. The combination of actual incarceration, prolonged mental 5 agony of trial, and the assurance of payment of compensation sufficiently meets the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court considers it just and proper to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant from one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the NI Act to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, i.e., more than twelve days. Ordered accordingly. 13. At the same time, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit the entire compensation/fine amount of Rs. 12,27,257/-, as imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, within a period of three months from today. The amount, if already deposited in part, shall be duly adjusted against the total liability. In the event of default in payment of the said compensation/fine within the stipulated period, the applicant shall undergo the substantive sentence as awarded by the Appellate Court. 14. Upon such deposit being made within the prescribed time, the entire compensation/fine amount shall be released in favour of the respondent/complainant forthwith, without unnecessary delay, in order to secure the object of Section 138 of the NI Act. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision stands partly allowed. 16. 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 Abhishek