1 2025:CGHC:31671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 848 of 2021 Haricharan Thakur (Wrongly Mentioned As Harchiran Thakur) S/o Purushottam Singh Thakur Aged About 55 Years Occupation -Teacher Primary Government School Maatri, Post- Bhanwarmara, Police Station Dondi Lohara, R/o Village Raigarh, Post Bhanwartara, Tehsil And Police Station Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Santosh Yadav S/o Parmeshwar Yadav, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No.5, Kanhe Road, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gopal S. Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Gopal S. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the non-applicant to press this revision when the case is called out of hearing today. 3. The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2019 and the applicant further prays that the appropriate order may kindly be passed in the larger interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the non-applicant preferred a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for registration of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it was alleged by the non-applicant that a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash) was given on credit to the applicant, and in discharge of that liability, a cheque was issued by the applicant to the non-applicant. When the non-applicant presented the cheque before the bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Based on this, Criminal Case No. 01/2018 was registered, and after the completion of the trial, the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 4,20,000/-, and in case of default in payment of the fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. 5. The applicant, being aggrieved by the order of conviction, preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was partially allowed vide order dated 04.03.2021. In appeal, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months was set aside, 3 and the fine amount was increased to Rs. 4,30,000/-. The applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the fine. A copy of the receipt is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that his client is not responding, and therefore, he has no instructions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of both the Courts. 8. From perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it transpires that the applicant was initially convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial Court, whereby the applicant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 4,20,000/- and in case of default in payment of the fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. Subsequently, being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was partially allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 04.03.2021. In the appeal, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months was set aside, and the fine amount was increased to Rs. 4,30,000/-. 9. However, it transpires from the communication made by the learned JMFC, Rajnandgaon (CG), that the applicant has already deposited the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- before the concerned trial Court. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and despite the applicant not responding, he has already deposited the fine amount before the concerned trial Court. 4 Further, after perusing the findings recorded by the appellate Court and the materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan