1 2025:CGHC:43109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 937 of 2015 Santkumar Manav S/o Mangla Ram Aged About 47 Years At Present R/o Karmachari, Bank Of Badoda, Main Road, Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Babulal Jain S/o Late Meghraj Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Ramdev Chowk, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod in Criminal Appeal No. 179/2013, arising out of the judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 92/2012, whereby the applicant has convicted for offences punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 80,000/- in default of payment of fine 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.28 19:37:01 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution's case, the complainant/non-applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, alleging that on 30.01.2012, the applicant/accused issued a cheque bearing No. 503075, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Balod Branch, for an amount of ₹50,000/- towards repayment of a loan amount. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but it was dishonoured on 03.02.2012 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 07.02.2012 through registered post. Despite the notice, the accused did not repay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint case. The applicant denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Court. After the completion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him accordingly, vide order dated 19.12.2012. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2012, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2015. Hence, this revision. 3. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2015 and further, he was directed to deposit Rs. 40,000/- before the trial Court concerned, but he has pointed out that the as the applicant could not furnish the bail bonds in view of the order dated 04.11.2015 passed by 3 the co-ordinate Bench whereby suspension was allowed and he has already served out the sentence as well as the default in payment of fine. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he was not aware of the facts stated by learned counsel for the applicant/accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act. 7. However, the trial Court is directed to verify the fact whether the applicant/accused has undergone the entire jail sentence and other facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant/accused and proceed in accordance with law, if so required. 8. If any amount of fine which has been deposited as ordered by the trial Court and appellate Court, the respondent is at liberty to move 4 an appropriate application before the trial Court concerned for withdrawing the said balance amount. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed 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 Preeti