1 2025:CGHC:59802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 857 of 2014 Vasu Kesharwani S/o Late Satyendra Kesharwani Aged About 19 Years R/o Old Chandaniya Para, Janjgir Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Kapoor Chand Sahu S/o Maharati Aged About 33 Years R/o Kera Road Janjgir, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2014 arising out of judgment dated 10.04.2014 passed by Learned JMFC, Janjgir (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 157/2013, whereby, the applicant has been convicted as under:- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.11 11:27:08 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 138 of the Negtiable Instruments Act R.I. for 01 year & fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 01 month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 25.01.2013, the applicant, towards discharge of an alleged legally enforceable debt/liability, issued two cheques bearing Nos. 022767 and 022768, each amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- totaling Rs. 4,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of Baroda, in favour of the complainant. The complainant deposited the said cheques for encashment through his bank, State Bank of India, Janjgir Branch, but both the cheques were returned unpaid with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant, through his advocate, issued a statutory demand notice to the applicant calling upon him to make payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period of 15 days, but despite service of notice, the applicant failed to make the payment. Consequently, the complainant instituted a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Janjgir. Upon conclusion of trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned J.M.F.C., vide judgment dated 10.04.2014, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a further direction of one month’s additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a 3 criminal appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, however, the Appellate Court, after re-evaluating the entire material available on record, vide judgment dated 19.11.2014, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, record and the settled facts of the case and consequently liable to be set aside. The learned Courts below overlooked the crucial fact that the applicant never received the total sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, at best the applicant had received only Rs.70,000/- as a security/advance, in respect of which two blank cheques and a blank stamp-paper of Rs.50/- were handed over to the respondent, those blank instruments were subsequently fraudulently filled in and misused by the respondent to fabricate a debt of Rs.4,00,000/– and to harass the applicant. The learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate and investigate the origin, nature and purpose of the alleged transaction, and erred in treating the forged/unauthorised filling up of blank cheques as proof of a completed loan of Rs.4,00,000/–. Further, it is submitted that the Courts below have ignored that the respondent has a history of instituting multiple complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (five other proceedings), which indicates a pattern of steep lending (sahukari) and vexatious litigation conduct which the respondent was not authorised to undertake (no sahukari licence) 4 and which materially affects the credibility of the complainant and the genuineness of the asserted claim. The learned Appellate Court gravely erred in converting the sentence into rigorous imprisonment when the trial Court itself awarded simple imprisonment, such alteration is arbitrary and without lawful basis and calls for interference. The complainant has also failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence and further, there is no reliable evidence of any legally enforceable debt of Rs.4,00,000/– having been advanced to the applicant, material documents and the true nature of the transaction remain unproved on record. The prosecution case is further vitiated by the absence of any independent eyewitnesses, by material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the complainant’s witnesses, and by defects in appreciation of evidence by the courts below. For these reasons the impugned order is vitiated by material irregularity, illegality and perversity and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have correctly held the applicant guilty, as the issuance of cheques, their dishonour due to insufficient funds, and the failure of the applicant to make payment even after statutory notice stand fully proved. It is further submitted that the defence taken by the applicant regarding alleged misuse of blank cheques is an afterthought and unsupported by any cogent evidence, whereas 5 the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act squarely operates in favour of the complainant. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court being well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence, call for no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Perusal of the impugned order transpires that the learned Appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence of the complainant and his supporting witnesses, concluded that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/– and issued the two cheques in question as security for repayment, and since the accused neither denied his signatures on the cheques nor produced any material to substantiate his defence of misuse or repayment, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act operated firmly against him. The Court also held that the pendency of other cheque-bounce cases against the complainant or allegations of money lending without licence had no bearing on the present liability, and finding the trial Court’s judgment to be in consonance with law and evidence, affirmed the conviction and sentence, thereby dismissing the appeal as meritless. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the applicant at the time of the incident and the period he has 6 already remained in custody, the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintained, the sentence however awarded by the learned trial Courts is modified and instead of serving the remaining jail sentence, the applicant is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The applicant shall deposit this amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from today, failing which, the applicant shall undergo the original sentence imposed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek