1 2025:CGHC:7319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 114 of 2015 Santosh Kumar Takri S/o Shri Raju Takri Aged About 35 Years R/o Quar- ter No. 487-A Street No. 17 Bmy Charoda Bhilai, Police Station Charoda, Tah. Durg, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o Quarter No. 4a Street No. 29 Sector 5 Bhilai Nagar, Tah. Durg, Civil and Rev. Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate ap- pears through video conferencing. For Respondent/State : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 213/2014 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District – Durg (C.G.), arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 55/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.), wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to undergo 06 months of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3,81,500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo 02 months of additional simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per the complainant’s case, he had given Rs.3,50,000/- to the non-applicant as they were well acquainted with each other. An agreement was executed between both parties as surety for this transaction. The applicant issued a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- from SBI Bank (cheque no. 574828) to discharge his legal liability to the complainant. However, the cheque was dishonored on 07.11.2012 due to insufÏcient funds. Upon receiving intimation of the dishonor from the bank, the non- applicant sent a legal notice to the applicant on 24.11.2012, which was duly served. Despite receiving the notice, the applicant failed to make the payment within the prescribed period. Consequently, the non-applicant filed a complaint case before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, registered as Complaint Case No. 55/2013. During the trial, the complainant examined himself, and based on the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented, the trial Court convicted the applicant/accused by judgment dated 30.06.2014, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo six months of simple imprisonment and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- to the applicant and in default two months further simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, registered 3 as Criminal Appeal No. 213/2014. However, by the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2015, the appellate Court upheld the trial court’s judgment dated 30.06.2014. Hence, this revision is being filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits the the applicant is willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,86,125/-, as he has already deposited Rs.95,375/- awarded by the learned trial Court, which was also afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court, the said fact also reflects from the order passed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, he prays for some time to deposit the same. 4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has raised no objection if the amount will be deposited by the applicant as was ordered by the learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 6. From perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it transpires that the applicant was convicted vide order dated 03.06.2014, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo SI for 06 months and directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,81,000/- as a compensation and in default to further undergo SI for 02 months, against which the applicant/accused preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, Durg, vide order dated 09.02.2015, whereby the appellate Court upheld the order passed by 4 the trial Court in which no interference is called for. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 8. However, it transpires from the judgment dated 09.02.2015 passed by the appellate Court that the applicant/accused has already been deposited Rs.95,375/- on 05.09.2014 before the trial Court concerned, and he is willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 2,86,125/-, therefore, the applicant/accused is directed to deposit the remaining amount before the trial Court concerned within a period of 03 months form the passing of this order, failing which he shall served out rest of his sentences, as has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid direction the criminal revision is disposed of. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan