1 2025:CGHC:46408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1484 of 2019 Mohd. Afjal S/o Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Aged About 26 Years R/o Rda Colony, Last House Of Opposite Water Tank, Boriyakhurd, Police Station Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus Badri Prasad Mishra S/o Late Shankar Lal Mishra Aged About 64 Years R/o Kota, Infront Of Gate, Ramdarbar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate along with Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. This criminal revision is filed by applicant challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No.458/2019 by which learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2019, passed in Complaint case no. 3994/2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.22 17:41:20 +0530 2 2. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act S.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs. 4,75,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 01 month. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondent. Applicant received a cheque of Rs. 90,000/- and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3,10,000/- was received by him in cash. Agreement (Ex. P/1) between applicant and respondent was executed on 16.03.2016. Thereafter, applicant gave a cheque bearing No.218932 of Rs. 4,00,000/- to respondent in discharge of his debt. When respondent presented said cheque in his bank, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in bank account of applicant. Notice was sent to applicant for payment of cheque amount, but applicant did not take any initiative in order to return the same. Therefore, respondent has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). 4. Applicant was charged with Section 138 of NI Act. Applicant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 5. After conclusion of trial, learned Judicial Magistrate upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, vide judgment dated 16.8.2019 convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for 03 months with fine of Rs. 4,75,000/- with default stipulations. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.8.2019, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2019. 3 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that complainant/respondent never gave money and false and fabricated case is cooked up against the applicant. He submits that applicant has already deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total fine amount of Rs.4,75,000/-, which has already been disbursed in favor of respondent. He is ready to deposit balance fine amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, however, for the said purpose he may be granted breathing time of six months. He submits that applicant was in jail from the date of passing of impugned judgment by learned appellate Court till he is ordered to be released on bail by this Court i.e. from 30.10.2019 to 28.11.2019. Since the applicant is ready to depsit balalnce fine amount as directed by learned trial Court i.e. Rs..2,75,000/-, which is more than the amount of cheque in question, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts on due appreciation of evidence available on record have arrived at just and proper findings which do not call for any interference by this Court. However, counsel for the respondent fairly agreed to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record of trial Court. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgments it appears that the learned trial Court had clearly recorded a finding that there was a legally recoverable debt against the applicant, in discharge of that, cheque was issued to the complainant and said cheque was dishonoured by the payee bank due to insufficient fund in the account of accused/applicant. Even after service of notice demanding cheque amount, the same was not paid by respondent to applicant. Said 4 finding of the learned trial Court has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Finding recorded by the trial Court and learned Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, in which I do not find any illegality and as such, the applicant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court and, Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in affirming the same. Thus, conviction of applicant under Section 138 of NI Act does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and it is maintained. 10. So far as submission of learned counsel for applicant that sentence imposed upon the applicant be reduced to period already undergone by him is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is ready to deposit the entire balance fine amount, which is more than the amount of cheque in question, coupled with the fact that learned counsel for respondent has no objection to such prayer if applicant deposits the entire fine amount; there is no material in record indicating that applicant has committed any such offence in the past and further considering that learned trial court has already directed that in default of payment of fine amount, the applicant shall serve simple imprisonment for one month, I am inclined to modify the sentences imposed upon applicant. 11. Accordingly, revision is allowed in part. 11. Accordingly, revision is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of applicant for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the substantive jail sentence imposed upon applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him maintaining the part of sentence of fine, however, balance fine amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- shall be deposited within six months. The condition of trial Court on non-deposit of fine is not disturbed. 5 12. Impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.10.2019 is modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza Judge