1 2025:CGHC:32311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 74 of 2023 Bharat Lal Soni S/o Shri Hiralal Soni, Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Mama Bhancha Talab, In Front of House of The Ex MLA Doctor Rakesh Kumar Singh Bilaspur Police Station City Kotwali District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Bhupendra Kumar Rathore S/o Late Preetam Lal Rathore, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Limtara, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2022 by the learned Third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby, the learned appellate Court partially allowed the appeal and directed to the applicant to deposit Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months of rigorous ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:14:20 +0530 2 imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that respondent/complainant was engaged in the work of house-to-house meter reading and was also doing meter reading at the house of the applicant/accused, due to which a good relationship developed between them. Owing to this relationship, the applicant/accused informed the respondent that he was in need of money for domestic purposes. On 03.08.2017, the applicant/accused stated that upon receiving an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- from the respondent, gold ornaments would be provided in lieu thereof. However, with the passage of time, the applicant/accused continued to evade the respondent despite repeated requests by the respondent to return either the gold ornaments or the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Thereafter, on 10.07.2018, a cheque for Rs. 1,15,000/- was issued and signed by the applicant/accused. The complainant presented the cheque before the concerned bank on 27.08.2018, which was dishonoured on 04.09.2018 due to insufficient funds in the account of the applicant/accused. The complainant was informed about the dishonour of the cheque. 3. Thereafter, the respondent, through his counsel, sent a legal notice regarding the dishonour of the cheque via registered post on 18.09.2018, demanding the payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. The notice was received by the applicant/accused on 22.09.2018. Despite receiving the notice, the applicant/accused neither returned the amount to the respondent nor replied to the said notice. Since the applicant/accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the 3 stipulated period, the respondent filed a complaint case against the applicant/accused, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 983/2018. 4. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence led by the complainant. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and acquitted the applicant of the remaining offences. The learned trial Court, having found that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge, convicted the applicant vide order dated 16.03.2022 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 983/2018 under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and directed to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in default of payment of fine, further RI for 03 months. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order and judgment dated 16.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed to the applicant to deposit Rs. 1,25,000/-, before the concerned trial Court, in default of payment of fine, 06 months of rigorous imprisonment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the learned Courts are bad in law as well as on the facts on record. He submits that the evidence of the complainant suffers from improvisations, material 4 contradictions, and omissions. The learned Court ought to have seen and held that the statements of the complainant do not support the case of the complainant, and therefore, it is very much possible that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He further submits that both the learned Courts ought to have considered that the complainant has not proved his source of income, and therefore, the judgments passed by both the learned Courts are liable to be set aside. He also submits that both the learned Courts ought to have considered that, in his cross-examination (para no. 11), the complainant has clearly admitted that he has been working as a private meter reader since 2011 and that he receives only Rs. 8,000/- per month as salary, which is not a sufficient source of income. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the complainant could have advanced an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the applicant/accused, and hence, the judgments passed by both the learned Courts are liable to be set aside. The learned appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the judgments cited by the applicant/accused, and therefore, the judgments passed by both the learned Courts are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court is just and proper, in which no interference is called for. 5 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 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 him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and directed to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in default of payment of fine, further RI for 03 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 05.12.2022. In the appeal, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months was set aside, and the fine amount was increased to Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default of payment of fine RI for 06 months.. 10. I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by imposing a fine amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in default of payment of fine amount 06 months of rigorous imprisonment. 11. Now considering the question of sentence, on a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as he is willing to pay the fine amount of not, he submits that he is ready to pay the fine amount imposed by the learned appellate Court and prays for some time to pay the same. 6 12. As such, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- imposed upon him by the learned appellate Court, within a period of two months from today, fine amount if any deposited earlier by the applicant shall be adjusted, failing which, the applicant shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned appellate Court. 13. On deposit of the said amount by the applicant, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant without delay. 14. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision stands disposed of. 15. 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