1 2025:CGHC:11390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1253 of 2022 • Vijay Singh S/o Huplal Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, Resident Of Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ratanlal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Resident of Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 25/11/2022 passed by the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, C.G. in criminal appeal No.09/2022 arising out of order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the JMFC, Bilaigarh, District – Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in complaint case No.227/2021, whereby the learned Appellate VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.03.26 11:21:23 +0530 2 Court has rejected appeal filed by the appellant and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced the applicant to undergo R.I. for two years and to fine amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount directed to undergo six months R.I. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant /respondent has filed the complaint under section 138 of negotiable instrument act against the applicant before the learned trial Court that the applicant and respondent are same village and resident and having good relationship and the applicant has obtained amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- as borrower from respondent due to need to money for finance of his tractor in the month of March 2021 and on account of that amount, the applicant has issued cheque no. 298275 mentioning amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- in favour of the respondent. That, thereafter, the complainant has produced the cheque on 17.03.2021 before his State Bank of India Branch Bilaigarh which was returned unpaid due to in sufficient fund vide bank returning memo dated 24.03.2021. complainant had sent the legal notice The on 06.04.2021 but amount was not paid by the applicant, therefore the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court bearing complaint case no. 227/2021, parties name Dinesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Vijay Singh. The learned trial Court below has after taking cognizance upon the complaint and evidence of the parties passed the judgment on 17.02.2022, convicting 2 years for rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-against the 3 applicant. The applicant has preferred an appeal before the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar against the judgment dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned trial Court, wherein the learned Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar passed the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure A-1), and rejected the appeal of the applicant. Hence the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisioner submits that is a money lender but license is not produced of the record by the complainant and misused the cheque issued as guarantee in favour of the complaint. He further there is no signature of the complainant on the order sheet and he also submits that the learned court below has committed the error of interpretation of provision of law under Section 138 of negotiable act, since the conviction was made without execution of any deed between the parties, but merely on the basis of food relation and signing of cheque but legally eforceable debt must also be proved, which has not been proved in accordance with the law by the complainant therefore the judgment passed by the learned session judge dated 25.11.2022 is contrary to law hence, liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra. learned counsel for the respondent contended that learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has passed the judgment on the basis of evidence led by the respondent (herein) complainant (therein) and he prays for disbursal of the fine amount to the respondent (herein)/complainant(therein) in trial Court. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the records, I have found that on the basis of legal debt applicant herein /accused in trial Court) has issued a cheque in favour of the respondent which has been bounced on bank on due procedure followed by the complainant issued notice to the revisioner but he had not paid the amount therefore, within prescribed period complainant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Complainant has discharged the burden prescribed under Section NIA Act and in-turn respondent has not remitted the same before the trial Court therefore, considering the evidence led before the trial Court under Section 118 of the NIA Act 1881 presumption as to Negotiable Instrument against the applicant (herein)/accused and Section 139 of the NIA Act, presumption in favour of the holder i.e. respondent and it shall be presumed that the holder of cheque received the nature of chequer referred in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any dept, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 138 of NIA Act as well as appellate Court has rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 138 of the NIA Act. 5 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant is facing criminal trial since a long period, considering the fact that the Sessions Judge has maintained the conviction awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.09/2022 and there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered jail sentence and also agony of criminal trial for many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for two years to three months under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but the sentence with regard to payment of fine amount is affirmed is same. It is admitted fact that the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.8,00,000/-shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of one month from today before the concerned trial Court and the same shall be paid to respondent/complainant. If the fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali