1 2025:CGHC:42786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 997 of 2015 S. K. Mitra S/o Late Sameer Kumar Mitra Aged About 45 Years R/o - O- 14, Anupam Nagar, Thana Mova, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Harekrishna Sikdar S/o Late Mukund Bihari Sikdar Aged About 63 Years R/o Qtr. No. 30/486, Gandhi Nagar Pandri, Thana - Mova, Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code. 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. B.R. Bhoi, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 115/2015 by the learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 98/2011, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment and to pay fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the Respondent/Complainant, Shri A.K. Tikadar, after his retirement, intended to invest a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in three separate investments under LIC Mutual Fund in the names of his children. For this purpose, the Respondent/Complainant called the Applicant/Accused to his government quarters situated at Tikrapara, where it was revealed in discussion that the Respondent/Complainant desired to invest in mutual funds. Since the Applicant/Accused was not an agent of mutual funds but merely an LIC agent, he expressed his inability to do so and, at the request of the Respondent/Complainant, agreed to facilitate the investment through a reliable acquaintance who was a licensed agent. Accordingly, the Applicant/Accused approached his close friend and agent, Sanjay Khanjode, resident of D-22, Sector-5, near Durga Mandir, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, as the Applicant/Accused generally carried out other mutual fund-related work through him. Thereafter, Sanjay Khanjode informed the Applicant/Accused that due to excess workload, mutual fund-related work was being handled by his wife, Smt. Madhuri Khanjode, and suggested that the said work be carried out through her. Accordingly, the Applicant/Accused introduced Madhuri Khanjode to the Respondent/Complainant at his government residence, explained 3 the scheme, and completed the necessary formalities. Thereafter, Madhuri Khanjode demanded three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each in the names of the accounts of the three children of the Respondent/Complainant. Since such cheques were not available in the names of the children, she suggested an alternative that three demand drafts of Rs.50,000/- each be made in the name of “LIC Mutual Fund, Raipur.” As the Respondent/Complainant was physically unwell, he called the Applicant/Accused to his private residence at Kali Nagar, Raipur, and informed that he would withdraw the money from the bank at Pandri and reach there. He asked the Applicant/Accused, Madhuri Khanjode, and Jeet Kumar Sonekar to reach Kali Nagar. By the time the Applicant/Accused and the others arrived, the Respondent/Complainant had already reached. At that point, the Respondent/Complainant handed over three demand drafts of Rs.50,000/- each along with Rs.3/- in cash to Madhuri Khanjode. About 15 to 20 days after the aforesaid incident, the Respondent/Complainant contacted the Applicant/Accused for receipts of the said investment amounts. The Applicant/Accused then provided the contact number of Sanjay Khanjode to the Respondent/Complainant. Thereafter, for about three months, there was no contact between the Applicant/Accused and the Respondent/Complainant. About three months later, when contact was re-established, the Respondent/Complainant again raised the issue of non-receipt of receipts. The Applicant/Accused then personally contacted Sanjay Khanjode and requested him to provide the receipts. About a week later, Sanjay Khanjode informed 4 the Applicant/Accused that he had already delivered the receipts to the Respondent/Complainant. To verify this information, the Applicant/Accused enquired from the Respondent/Complainant, who confirmed receipt of the receipts, which in fact turned out to be forged and fabricated receipts issued by Sanjay Khanjode, without the knowledge of either the Applicant/Accused or the Respondent/Complainant. In the meantime, the Respondent/Complainant, through Sanjay Khanjode, had invested an additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in LIC Mutual Fund, which was not within the knowledge of the Applicant/Accused. The certificate of investment was later received by the Respondent/Complainant through post. On discovering that while the said investment certificate was received, the earlier investment of Rs.1,50,000/- had not yielded any certificate, the Respondent/Complainant again approached the Applicant/Accused, who then carried the copies of the three receipts to the branch office at Millennium Plaza, Raipur. There it was discovered that the receipts were forged and that Madhuri Khanjode and Sanjay Khanjode had jointly misappropriated the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. This fact was immediately conveyed by the Applicant/Accused to the Respondent/Complainant. Alarmed at the revelation, the Respondent/Complainant disclosed to the Applicant/Accused that an additional investment of Rs.5,00,000/- had also been made through Sanjay Khanjode and requested the Applicant/Accused to verify its authenticity. Upon inquiry at the branch office, Millennium Plaza, the Applicant/Accused came to know three facts: (i) both 5 Sanjay Khanjode and his wife were running agencies simultaneously, though Sanjay had concealed the fact that his wife, Madhuri Khanjode, was also an agent; (ii) the investment of Rs.5,00,000/- had been transacted under the agency of Madhuri Khanjode; and (iii) the said investment had witnessed a total of seven withdrawals and five deposits. Upon obtaining the relevant statement, the Respondent/Complainant, distressed, lodged a complaint through the Applicant/Accused with the Branch Manager’s office. The Branch Manager, however, refused to accept the complaint through a third party, advising instead that the complainant approach directly along with the agent and all investors separately. The Respondent/Complainant expressed his inability to bring his children, as they had recently departed for Delhi. Thereafter, two days later, relying upon assurances by Sanjay Khanjode, the Respondent/Complainant accompanied him to the branch office, where an application for withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000/- was submitted, and the said amount was credited to the account of the Respondent/Complainant. For the remaining sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and interest of Rs.10,000/-, totaling Rs.1,60,000/-, the Respondent/Complainant obtained a written guarantee from the Applicant/Accused on plain paper, which was later reiterated on the reverse side of the same paper after the lapse of the stipulated period. Upon failure of repayment, the Respondent/Complainant demanded a guarantee cheque from the Applicant/Accused, assuring that the same would be returned once cash payment was received from Sanjay Khanjode. About 15 days later, the 6 Respondent/Complainant received a telephonic misrepresentation from Sanjay Khanjode that the said sum of Rs.1,60,000/- had been deposited into the account of one S.K. Mitra, a friend of the Applicant/Accused, and that payment could be collected from there. Acting upon this information, the Respondent/Complainant deposited the said cheque into his bank, but it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Upon informing Sanjay Khanjode of this dishonour, he declined to intervene further and directed the Respondent/Complainant to pursue recovery from the Applicant/Accused. Thus, the Respondent/Complainant falsely implicated the Applicant/Accused. Between Sanjay Khanjode and S.K. Mitra, a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending, wherein Sanjay Khanjode was the Complainant/Respondent and S.K. Mitra was the Appellant/Accused, before the Court of Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur, presided over by Shri Abdul Zahid Qureshi. In the said case, vide judgment dated 07-11-2015, the Applicant/Accused was acquitted. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that the trial Court has imposed the fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- upon the applicant, and the same has been deposited by him to the respondent. It is further submitted that so far as the sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment is concerned, the applicant has not undergone for a single day in jail, and the 7 sentence of 6 months imprisonment be set-off, as the fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent by him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has no objection with the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, as he does not dispute the fact that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, the applicant has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent. So far as the sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment is concerned, the applicant has not undergone for a single day in jail, but as the fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent by him, furthermore, the complaint on the incident was lodged in the year 2015, and more than 10 years have been elapsed, thus, the 8 sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment as has been ordered by the learned trial Court is accordingly set-off. 8. Resultantly, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned within a week forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar