1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1052 of 2016 Santosh Kumar Jain S/o Bhanwarlal Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o Andi, Tahsil - Doundilohara, District - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant/Accused versus Mahaveer Tated S/o Ashokchand Tated Aged About 32 Years R/o Bazar Road, Doundilohara, District - Balod Chhattisgarh, ...Non-Applicant/Complainant For Applicant : Shri Aditya Shrivastava appear on behalf of Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Shri Arvind Prasad, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 10/09/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Balod in Cri. Appeal No.10/2016 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I.Act) and sentence of RI for six months with fine of Rs.10,000/- plus usual default, as recorded by the Court of J.M.F.C. Dondilohara in Criminal Case No. 214/2013 vide judgment dated 13.01.2016, has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant and the accused/applicant are both acquainted each other and on 10.08.2013 the applicant/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the respondent/complainant with a condition to repay the same within a week, but the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.09.11 10:09:08 +0530 2 said amount has not been repaid to the respondent, thereafter, on approach by the complainant, the applicant issued a cheque on 10.09.2013 containing his signature. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent presented the cheque in Durg-Rajnandgaon Rural Bank, Branch Dondilohara, however, the same was dishonoured stating that there is ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant was constrained to issue notice to the applicant/accused on 24.09.2013, which was obtained by the applicant, but the applicant refused to receive it nor made repayment. Aggrieved by the said action of the applicant/accused, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of J.M.F.C. Dondilohara. 3. The learned J.M.F.C. took the cognizance of the complaint and vide its judgment dated 13.01.2016 recorded finding of conviction and sentence of the applicant and in appeal also the learned appellate Court affirmed the same vide its judgment, as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits he does not want to press this revision on conviction part and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail since 13.10.2016 till 17.11.2016 i.e. for more than one month and 3 days, he has no criminal antecedents and that he is facing the lis since 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years. He further submits that the fine amount has been deposited before the concerned Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. From the statement of complainant (P.W.1) and exhibited material documents available on record, both the learned trial Court and appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, have rightly convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same. 3 8. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for a period of more than one month and 3 days, he is facing the lis since 2013, i.e., for more than 12 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that no purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail as the object of criminal justice would be served in awarding the sentence already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of N.I.Act is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, however, fine sentence imposed under the said offence is affirmed. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani