1 2025:CGHC:32580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 44 of 2024 Sheikh Sirajuddin @ Siraj S/o Nizamuddin Varsh Aged About 44 Years R/o Post- Barela, Ps- Jarhagaon,, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Anil Jaiswal S/o Late Mulchand Aged About 57 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 02, Ps- Takhatpur, Distt- Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate , Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s)/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The present revision is being preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District–Bilaspur (Presided by Shri Anil Kumar Chauhan) in Complaint Case No. 238/2015 (Sheikh Sirajuddin vs. Anil Jaiswal), whereby the learned trial Court convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further directed him to pay a fine of ₹80,000/- (Eighty Thousand), with a default stipulation of three months’ additional simple imprisonment in case of non- payment of the fine. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court, while partly modifying the sentence, directed the appellant (revisionist herein) to pay ₹80,000/- (Eighty Thousand) to the complainant within one month, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being dissatisfied with the appellate Court’s judgment as well, the applicant now prefers this revision. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant (non- applicant herein) alleged in his complaint that he had cordial family relations with the accused (revisionist herein). In March 2015, the accused had borrowed a sum of ₹50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) from the complainant for obtaining the weekly market contract at Deorhat and Belgahna. The said amount was agreed to be returned without any interest within three months. Towards repayment, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 139181 dated 26/06/2015 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Barela Branch, Account No. 1303000100153300 in favor of the complainant. The complainant presented the above cheque on the same date i.e., 26/06/2015 for encashment through his account (No. 3162550822) in the Central Bank of India, Takhatpur Branch. However, the said cheque was 3 dishonoured due to “insufficient funds” as reported by Punjab National Bank. 3. That upon dishonour of the cheque, the complainant sent a legal notice through his advocate to the accused via registered post, which was duly received by the accused. However, despite receiving the notice, the accused failed to make the payment. Consequently, the complainant, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, praying for compensation of double the cheque amount (i.e., ₹1,00,000/-) and for the accused to be punished with imprisonment. 4. In support of his complaint, the complainant entered into the witness box and submitted, Exhibit P-01: Original receipt for depositing the cheque; Exhibit P-02: Original cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank, Barela Branch; Exhibit P-03: Original cheque return memo issued by Central Bank of India, Takhatpur Branch; Exhibit P-04: Postal receipt of the registered legal notice sent to the accused; Exhibit P-05: Office copy of the legal notice sent by the advocate. The accused examined one defence witness, Rajesh Kumar Suryavanshi. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and passed the order dated 19.07.2021. In the appeal filed against the said conviction, the learned appellate Court partly modified the sentence and directed the appellant to pay ₹80,000/- to the complainant within one month, 4 failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate contradictions and inconsistencies in the cross-examination of the complainant. In Para 9 of his cross-examination, the complainant admitted he could not recall the exact date on which the alleged loan was given or the names of witnesses present, and also said the accused had taken the loan for Belgahna market contract. However, in Para 10, the accused denies taking any such contract. He further submits that the complainant initially stated that the cheque was issued on 26/06/2015, but in Para 11 of the cross-examination, he admitted that the cheque was given “two or three days later” and that the accused had only signed the cheque, while the rest of the content was filled in by someone else, as the accused was not literate enough. He also admitted to poor eyesight and said he got the postal receipt filled by someone else. In Para 12, he admitted that the cheque dated 26/06/2015 was not handed over to him by the accused in March 2015; the date was filled later. In Para 13, he confessed that he did not know the cheque number or account number of the accused, and therefore did not mention it in the complaint. He also submits that in Para 14 of cross-examination, the complainant stated he was unsure whether the legal notice sent by the advocate was actually received by the accused or not, and admitted he did not have an acknowledgment receipt. He also failed to recall how many days after the notice the complaint was filed. 5 This shows non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 138 regarding notice and limitation and further the statements made by the complainant indicate that the complaint is false and that it was filed without compliance of the legal requirements of issuing a valid notice and waiting period, which renders the complaint unsustainable in law. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that out of 80,000/- fine amount as awarded by the learned trial Court, the applicant has already deposited Rs. 50,000/- and he states that he is having some documentary prove regarding the same and further submits that he would deposit the balance amount, be that as it may. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the appellate Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the applicant has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further directed him to pay a fine of ₹80,000/- (Eighty Thousand), with a default stipulation of three months’ additional simple imprisonment in case of non- 6 payment of the fine. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court, while partly modifying the sentence, directed the appellant (revisionist herein) to pay ₹80,000/- (Eighty Thousand) to the complainant within one month, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned appellate Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 12. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is ready and willing to pay the amount to the non- applicant/complainant, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present revision with the direction that the applicant shall deposit the amount before the trial Court as has been ordered by the trial Court and partly modified by the appellate Court in favour of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the applicant earlier shall be adjusted. If the fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned trial Court as well as modified by the appellate Court. 7 13. On deposit of the said amount by the applicant, the same shall be disbursed to the non-applicant/complainant without delay. 14. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision stands disposed off. 15. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal