1 2025:CGHC:31672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 63 of 2021 Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Ramchand Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Purana Gaurela, P.S. Gaurela, District- Bilaspur, (Presently District- Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi) Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus R.L. Soni S/o B.L. Soni, Aged About 52 Years Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela, Tahsil Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur, (Presently District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi), District : Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant/ revisionist with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside/quash the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure A/1) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.38/2018 (Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. R.L. Soni,) in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the the non-applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging that the applicant herein gave him a cheque No.562771 worth Rs. 5,50,000/-, non-applicant submitted the above mentioned cheque at Allahabad Bank Branch Khodri, Pendraroad on 13.04.2012 in his account No. 5349, which was returned by the bank on 28.05.2012 with statement that applicant's account has no sufficient balance. Thereafter, the non-applicant sent a legal notice to the applicant on 07.06.2012 and thereafter filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC) Marwahi Link Court, Pendraroad. After appearance, applicant submitted a detailed reply along with various documents and also deposed statement as a witness before the trial Court. 3. In the reply filed by the applicant and documents submitted by him, without looking into the statement of applicant in the matter, the trial Court convicted the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and directed the applicant to pay the dishonored amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the non-applicant and also sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3 Pendraroad. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the applicant. However, the appellate Court directed the applicant to pay a fine equivalent to the cheque amount of ₹5,50,000/-, failing which the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant has preferred the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2019 is bad, illegal and contrary to law and it was the duty of the non-applicant as to whether the applicant was liable to pay the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- but the non-applicant failed to state anything in his complaint and also in his statement. The complainant witness No. 1 admitted the fact that in the questioned cheque deferent persons wrote different heads. He further submits that the applicant specifically stated before the trial Court that he was given a tender for realization of environment from 01.04.2011 up to 31.03.2012 worth of Rs. 20,50,000/-. On the date of issuance of tender as per the prescribed rules applicant paid Rs. 4,75,000/- in cash and as per the demand of non-applicant applicant gave questioned cheque which was undated. The applicant produced Exhibit D/1 to D/15 which are the receipts of Nagar Panchayat Gaurela, which clearly show that applicant was continuously paying amounts to them. Applicant also produced Exhibit D/17 which is application preferred by him requesting non-applicant to return the questioned cheque which was kept by non-applicant as security. The applicant has not committed any kind of offence and the 4 applicant is not liable to pay any amount to the non-applicant. Applicant gave the questioned cheque as security which is proved by him before the trial Court. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the judgment and findings of the both the Court below and further again pleased to acquit the accused by the alleged offence. 6. I have perused the case diary and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial Court has found the accused, Rajesh Jaiswal, guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a check dated 10.02.2012, for ₹5,50,000/-, which was dishonored by the bank. The accused failed to pay the amount despite notice. The trial Court found the said act to be cheating, which erodes trust in the banking system and causes financial loss. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the said was done by the accused with malicious intention. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, convicted the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment with compensation to a tune of Rs. 5,50,000/-(Five lakhs fifty thousand), in default of payment of amount to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the applicant. However, the appellate Court directed the applicant to 5 pay a fine equivalent to the cheque amount of ₹5,50,000/-, failing which the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence levelled against the applicant, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in modifying the sentence of the applicant as awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as such, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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 Rahul Dewangan