1 2025:CGHC:43120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 440 of 2015 Mustaq Ali S/o Guljar Ali Aged About 43 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Saurab Mandal S/o Sahad Mandal Aged About 50 Years R/o Hawda Motors, Dharam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 98/2014 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2014 passed by Learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) passed in Complaint ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.26 17:33:23 +0530 2 Case No. 699/2011, whereby, the applicant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 138 of the Negtiable Instruments Act Imprisonment till rising out of the Court U/s 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in default of payment of compensation 3 months S.I. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the complainant/applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused/non-applicant before the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.). The case of complainant in brief is that the accused had taken Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant for his domestic need and for repayment of money, the accused had given cheque bearing No. 539792 of Rs. 2,00,000/- of Bank of Baroda, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur Branch, on 30.11.2010, which was presented by the complainant in the Bank for withdrawal of amount and the same was dishonoured with a note of insufficient fund in the Bank account of accused. The complainant sent legal notice to the accused through his advocate, but he failed to repay the amount, therefore the complainant filed the complaint. Upon perusal of material evidence adduced before the Court, vide judgment dated 02.04.2014, the learned JMFC, Raipur convicted the accused/non-applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him S.I. for 1 year and further 3 directed him to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/ applicant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 02.04.2014, the accused/non-applicant filed an appeal before the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) and vide impugned judgment dated 02.03.2015, the learned Appellate Court though maintained the conviction of accused, but reduced the jail sentence from one year S.I. to till rising out of court and enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence this appeal on the following grounds :- 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2015 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Appellate Court has gravely erred in reducing the jail sentence of accused from one year S.I. to till rising out of court, despite maintaining the conviction of the accused and has committed error of law in interfering into the well reasoned judgment passed by the leaned trial Court with respect to the sentence awarded to the accused. Further, the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had duly proved the guilt of accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ought to have awarded double compensation of amount mentioned in the cheque, while reducing the jail sentence. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Appellate Court while modifying the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court has held that the nature of the offence punishable under Section 138 is almost of a faulty civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour. In view of this, the sentence given appears to be excessive. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court instead of awarding one year imprisonment, modified the same and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Appellant Court while modifying the sentence imposed by learned trial Court, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhisshek