1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 927 of 2016 ORDER RESERVED ON 29.10.2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21.11.2025 Irfan Khan S/o Islam Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o 151, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Police Station Nevai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner/Accused versus Amresh Jain S/o Late P.L. Jain, Aged About 53 Years Partner Arihant Finance, R/o Amresh Medicals, Sector 06, A Market, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent/Complainant CRR No. 929 of 2016 Irfan Khan S/o Islam Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o 151, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Police Station- Nevai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner/Accused Versus Amresh Jain S/o Late P.L. Jain Partner- Arihant Finance, R/o Amresh Medicals, Sector-06, A Market, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner/Acccused : Shri Navin Shukla appears on behalf of Shri Shamsuddin Mirja, Advocate. For Respondent/complainant : None, though served. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) C A V Order 1. Since both the above captioned revisions arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 10.08.2016, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.11.21 16:51:49 +0530 2 2. The present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are directed against the common judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.106/2016 filed by the accused Irfan Khan for setting aside the judgment dated 04.06.2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 109/2016 filed by the complainant Amresh Jain seeking enhancement of sentence and fine amount. The learned appellate Court allowed both the appeals in part and, while affirming the conviction of the applicant–Irfan Khan under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”), modified the sentence from three months’ simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,14,000/-, as against the judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1326/2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner/applicant has preferred the present revisions before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to herein as they were arrayed before the trial Courts. 3. Brief facts as projected by the applicant are that the complainant is a partner of Arihant Finance and on account of having an old acquaintance with the applicant, the complainant has given Rs.60,000/- as loan to the applicant in May, 2006 as per his need and for repayment of which, the applicant gave a cheque bearing No.811570 dated 27.06.2006 which was dishonoured on account of “stop payment”. After that, the complainant sent a registered legal notice, which was refused to take by the applicant on 22.08.2006. As the applicant failed to repay the loan amount despite notice, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 4. The complainant, in support of his case, led evidence by examining himself as P.W.1, whereas the statement of the applicant was recorded under 3 Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he abjured the charge and pleaded not guilty. The applicant also led evidence in defence by examining himself as D.W.1 and Irshad Khan as D.W.2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by both the learned Courts, without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, is not sustainable in law. He would further submit that in fact, the cheque given by the applicant to the complainant was of the year 2003 for procuring poultry feed. He would next contend that as a matter of fact, the cheque was given to the complainant as a security measure but was not issued in discharge of legal liability and debt and that, the complainant has also failed to prove that the cheque was issued by the applicant/accused under any legal liability or debt. 6. None for the respondent despite notice being served on him. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to quote Section 138 of the N.I.Act which envisages that debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability and reads as under: [CHAPTER XVII OF PENALTIES IN CASE OF DISHONOUR OF CERTAIN CHEQUES FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNTS 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years’], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply 4 unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “debt of other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 9. P.W.1 Amresh Kumar Jain, the complainant and partner of Arihant Finance, stated that due to an old acquaintance and the accused’s financial need, the accused borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from him in May 2006. Upon demand for repayment, the accused issued Cheque No. 811570 (Ex.P.2) dated 27.06.2006, drawn on UCO Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Bhilai, for Rs. 60,000/-. In cross-examination, he admitted that on 30th May 2006, the accused, citing domestic problems, requested a loan of Rs. 60,000/-, and after agreeing to issue a cheque for the said amount, borrowed the money and when he deposited the cheque, it was dishonoured due to “stop payment”. 10. In defence, the accused/applicant examined himself as D.W.1 and stated that the cheque was given to the complainant only as a security measure. However, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he admitted his signature on the cheque (Ex.P.2). To establish his business dealings with the complainant, the applicant produced bills marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.51. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not issued any notice to the complainant for the return of the cheque, nor had he lodged any complaint. 5 He further admitted that the cheque was issued at his residence solely for security purposes, without any witness present, and that no written agreement was executed regarding the issuance of the cheque as security. 11. From a perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the applicant borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant in May 2006 and, for repayment, issued Cheque No. 811570 (Ex.P.2) dated 27.06.2006 for the said amount and when the complainant (P.W.1) deposited the said cheque, it was dishonoured due to “stop payment.” The burden of proof, therefore, lies on the applicant/accused to raise a plausible defence and in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, a mere oral denial of liability is insufficient to accept the version of the accused/applicant, particularly when he has admitted his signature on the cheque. Thus, it is clear that the cheque was issued in discharge of his legal liability or debt. The evidence further establishes that the cheque (Ex.P.2) pertains to the year 2006 and not 2003, and that the applicant/accused has failed to prove that the cheque was issued merely for security purposes. 12. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of the Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, which does not warrant any interference. 13. In the result, both the above captioned criminal revisions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani