1 2025:CGHC:42775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 827 of 2014 Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Parasmala Jain Aged About 35 Years Proprietor Firm M/s Jain Stores, Surajpur, Police Station And Post Surajpur, District Ambikapur C.G. At Present District Surajpur C.G. , ... Applicant versus 1. Radhegopal S/o Late Nandlal Proprietor Firm M/s Sharan Sales, Telghani Naka, Police Station Ganj, District Raipur C.G. 2. State of C.G. Through Collector, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anand Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant that the complainant has passed away, and his legal representative wishes to pursue the matter. 2. This criminal revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 11.11.2014, passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 185/2012, whereby the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.26 18:52:21 +0530 2 learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1048/2010 dated 08.10.2012, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo 06 months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, one month simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Radhegopal(died) filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the applicant issued a cheque dated 25.02.2007 for Rs. 2.85 lakhs (Cheque No. 0910009), drawn on Central Bank of India, Surajpur (C.G.). The cheque was deposited in the complainant’s bank Vyavsayik Sahkari Bank, Raipur on 02.08.2007 but was dishonoured on 14.08.2007 due to insufficient funds. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.09.2007 through counsel, demanding payment of Rs. 2.85 lakhs, failing which he would initiate legal proceedings. The complainant claimed to be the proprietor of M/s Sharan Sales, while the applicant was stated to be the proprietor of M/s Jain Verities, dealing in the scrap business. The cheque was allegedly issued towards payment for Bill No. 17. During examination, Radhegopal(died) admitted there was overwriting on the cheque and that he knew the applicant only from the date of the cheque issuance. He also admitted that the legal notice was not sent with an acknowledgment and stated that he could not identify the applicant’s signature in the order-sheets. The service of the legal 3 notice upon the applicant is not proved. Despite this, the trial Court recorded a finding that service was effected and held the notice to be duly proved. However, the acknowledgment was neither produced nor proved. In fact, Radhegopal(died) himself admitted the notice was not sent via acknowledgment, raising serious doubt about its service. 4. The applicant specifically challenged the service of the legal notice during cross-examination of the complainant. Even then, the complainant took no steps to prove service. Therefore, in absence of such proof, the complaint under Section 138 should have been dismissed. Furthermore, the complainant failed to produce Bill No. 17 to establish any existing liability. In support of his defence, the applicant examined one Shri B.S. Parihar, Assistant Branch Manager at Central Bank of India, Mohgaon Surajpur. Specimen Signature Card (Exhibit D-1) and bank account details (Exhibit D-2) were produced. Nevertheless, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by judgment dated 08.10.2012, held the applicant guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act, observing that the notice was issued within the statutory period after the return memo, and the complaint was filed within time. The Magistrate, however, failed to consider whether the notice was ever served upon the applicant. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with one month simple imprisonment in default. The fine amount was deposited on 08.10.2012. 4 5. Aggrieved by the conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. The appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The applicant submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, perverse, and passed without proper appreciation of facts and law. The Sessions Court failed to consider the non-service of the legal notice and the absence of proof of any liability, such as Bill No. 17. It was also not appreciated that the complainant only knew the applicant from the date of the cheque, casting doubt on any prior business relationship. The appellate Court acted mechanically and without due application of mind, thereby rendering the judgment liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already undergone about 25 days of jail sentence, and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 5 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the conviction is affirmed. 9. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant/accused is facing the criminal trial since 2012 and more than 13 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant/accused at present and further considering that the applicant/accused has already undergone 25 days of jail sentence, and fine amount has already been deposited by him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant/accused in jail again as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant/accused, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. Ordered accordingly. 10. In view of the same, the Court finds no reason to substitute respondent No.1 with his legal heirs in the present revision, as no compensation has been awarded by the trial Court. 6 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti