1 2025:CGHC:32063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 79 of 2023 Yashwant Sharma S/o D.P. Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Dadsena Kirana Stores, Quarter No.26, Jawahar Nagar Durg, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Nitish Kumar Deshmukh S/o B.R. Deshmukh R/o Infront Of Sanskritik Bhawan, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 173/2019, arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2019 passed in by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 4750/2012. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that respondent No.1 has filed a litigation against the applicant under Negotiable Instrument Act at the Court of JMFC, Durg, stating that the applicant has taken loan from him of amount Rs. 1,50,000/- for personal purpose on 01.06.2012. The applicant then, gave a cheque of State Bank of India bearing number 375121 dated 17.06.2012 of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent No.1 in lieu of the said amount. The respondent No.1 deposited the said cheque in his account at HDFC Bank, Durg for encashment. On 09.08.2012 a memo was received by the respondent No.1 regarding the said cheque stating "payment stopped by drawer. The respondent No.1 further stated that the information of dishonorment of cheque was conveyed to the applicant, but no response was given by the applicant. Then on 31.08.2012 a notice was send by the respondent No.1 to the applicant regarding the said fact, which was reverted by stating "Bina Pata Bataye Jana". Again on 05.09.2012 second notice was sent which was again reverted stating the same i.e. "Bina pata Bataye Jana". Then on 11.09.2019 third notice was send to the applicant at his office address which was reverted after the denial of the applicant. The applicant denied all the allegations leveled against him. The applicant stated that the litigation filed by the respondent No.1 is malafied. The cheque in dispute was never ever given to the respondent No.1 but the said cheque was given to the father of the applicant, whose work place is at Raipur, has lost the said cheque in the year 2011 at Raipur. Written report was lodged at Police Station Raipur regarding the same. Subsequently to this incident, the applicant on 28.11.2011 informed his bank to stop the payment of the said cheque. The respondent No.1 somehow got the said cheque and took advantage of the same. The learned JMFC after hearing both the parties sentenced the applicant with 1 year simple 3 imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, in default of payment, simple imprisonment for 30 days. Being aggrieved by the order of the JMFC, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) filed an appeal at the Court of Session. The learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting-aside the imprisonment and by increasing the fine amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- to be deposited within a period of 2 months, and in default of the same he shall undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have not properly considered this fact that the disputed cheque was lost in the year 2011, regarding which written report was lodged at the concerned Police Station. It is further submitted that the applicant asked the bank to stop payment of the said cheque in the year 2011 itself. It is also submitted that the fine amount imposed upon the applicant by the learned appellate Court of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is clear that the fine amount imposed upon the applicant by the learned appellate Court to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been deposited by the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned appellate Court has passed the impugned order by setting-aside the imprisonment 4 and increasing the fine amount, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan