1 2025:CGHC:43110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 681 of 2015 J. P. Minerals S/o J.C. Meshram Aged About 30 Years Through - Jyoti Prakash Meshram R/o Plot No. 692 Street No. 22, Smriti Nagar, Thana- Supela, Bhilai Revenue and Civil - Durg Tahsil and District - Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus Dev Kumar Chandrakar S/o K.R. Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. 13, Sukha Jhhad Samta Colony, Thana - City Saraswat Nagar Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh , ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2015, arising out of the judgment and order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 61/2011, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act and sentenced PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.26 19:22:56 +0530 2 till the rising of the Court and further under Section 357 of CrPC Rs. 10,00,000/- was awarded to the applicant and in default of compensation additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2. According to the prosecution's case, the Complainant/Respondent filed a complaint under the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Complainant/Respondent has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner firm issued Cheque No. 376102 dated 15/08/2008, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Bhilai Branch, for an amount of ₹7,00,000/- towards repayment of a loan given to the firm for business purposes. It was also alleged in the complaint that the Complainant/Respondent deposited the aforesaid cheque in his State Bank of India account (Account No. 492002014) on 15/12/2008. The cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the drawer’s account. Intimation regarding the return of the cheque was issued on 16/12/2008. A demand notice was issued by the Complainant/Respondent on 13/01/2009 to the accused/petitioner for payment of the due amount. The learned Trial Judge took cognizance and issued notice to the accused/petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Court. The learned Court below framed charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The present accused/petitioner denied the charges and faced trial. Upon completion of the trial, based on the statement of the Complainant alone, the learned JMFC convicted the accused/petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide judgment dated 17/03/2015 in Complaint No. 61/2011, imposing a punishment of six months’ simple 3 imprisonment. The petitioner was also directed to pay double the cheque amount as compensation under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been sentenced till the rising of the Court under Section 138 of NI Act and further under Section 357(3) of CrPC, a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was awarded to the non-applicant and in default of payment of compensation, additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. It is stated that though the applicant was granted time to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- within 3 weeks vide the order dated 03.09.2015 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but he could not deposit the same. He would further submit that the cheque in question was of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation has been imposed and the same may be reduced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would strongly supports the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the 4 prosecution, I am of the view that the applicant has rightly been convicted. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction. 7. Further, from perusal of the record, it transpires that the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was ordered by the appellate Court to be paid by the applicant and further, the application of suspension of sentence and grant of bail of the applicant was also allowed on 03.09.2015 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court subject to the condition that the applicant would to deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of three weeks from the said order, but the same has also not been deposited, in view of the same, the revision is accordingly dismissed. Further it is directed that applicant shall deposit the said compensation amount i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the concerned trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody to served out the jail sentence as has been awarded by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed to the extent indicated herein-above. 9. 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