1 2025:CGHC:59524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 514 of 2014 Govind Chauhan S/o S/o S.S. Chauhan Aged About 34 Years Chaurasiya Colony, Opposite Teacher P.S. Thakurs Home, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Applicant versus Shriram Sonboir (Dead) Through Lrs Jitendra Kumar Sonboir (Dead) Through Lrs. 1(B) Damin W/o Jitendra Kumar Sonboir Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jungera, Post Taraud, P. S. Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 153/2013, arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2012 passed in criminal case No.260/2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal of the applicant by reducing the sentence of one year’s imprisonment to the period already under gone by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of compensation rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Facts of the case are that on 04.10.2010, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint stating that the appellant/accused and his brother-in- law, Prakash Dehri, resident of Changorabhatha, Raipur, jointly demanded money from the complainant for securing jobs for the complainant’s brothers, namely Vishnu Kumar, Lugendra, and Dharmesh Kumar. Accordingly, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash, at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per person. When the accused failed to secure the jobs, the complainant lodged a written report at the police station. Thereafter, the appellant entered into a compromise with the complainant and, after admitting to having received the money on 15.10.2006, got an Ikrarnama (agreement) written by his brother-in-law on 11-03-2010, assuring repayment through a cheque at Balod. The complainant was given cheques of Rs. 50,000/- on 31.05.2010, Rs. 50,000/- on 30.06.2010, and Rs. 1,70,000/- on 31.07.2010 for repayment. Prior to executing the Ikrarnama, the applicant had also paid Rs. 80,000/- in cash to the complainant and promised to pay the remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. 3. When the complainant presented the above cheques for encashment on 31.07.2010 at the State Bank of India, Balod Branch, they were dishonoured due to insufÏcient funds in the appellant’s account. On being informed, the applicant asked the complainant to present the cheques again after depositing money in the bank. Accordingly, the complainant re-presented the cheque on 31.08.2010, but it was again dishonoured on 3 08.09.2010. Thereafter, through his advocate, the complainant sent a registered legal notice dated 13.09.2010 (Exhibit P-14) to the applicant/accused. Even after receiving the notice, the appellant failed to make payment within the stipulated time. Consequently, the present complaint was filed. 4. When the particulars of the offence were explained to the appellant, he denied the allegations. The complainant examined himself in evidence. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed that he was innocent and stated that all three cheques had been given to his brother-in-law, Prakash Dehri. 5. Based on this, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, District Balod, vide order dated 16.04.2012 in Criminal Case No. 260/2011, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.04.2012, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Balod, District Balod in criminal appeal No. 153/13, whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant, and partly allowed the appeal of the applicant by reducing the sentence of one year’s imprisonment to the period already under gone by the him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of 4 payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts are illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside as both the Courts have completely misconstrued the circumstances of the case and arrived at erroneous conclusions. It is argued that the impugned order, even on its face, does not satisfy the scrutiny standards required for conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellate Court failed to appreciate that the trial Court had opted for the summons trial procedure but did not adhere to the procedural requirements laid down in Chapter 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused/revisionist stand vitiated. He submits that the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate that the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused without there being even an iota of evidence against him. Neither the complainant nor his witnesses were examined at the post- summoning stage of the trial. The complainant’s side was only cross- examined on the afÏdavit filed at the pre-summoning stage for the purpose of registration of the case and taking cognizance under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This fact remains uncontroverted even as per the complainant. Hence, the conviction and sentence are vitiated. He also submits that the afÏdavit filed at the pre- summoning stage cannot be treated as evidence at the post-summoning stage under the garb of Section 145 of the NI Act. It is a settled position that Section 145 only provides the mode of giving evidence (how), whereas the stage at which evidence is to be given (when) is governed by the substantive law relating to summons trials, which mandates leading evidence again at the post-summoning stage. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused/revisionist stand vitiated. Even 5 the cross-examination of the complainant’s witnesses was not recorded separately. The cross-examination relied upon in this case is merely a carbon copy/printout of the evidence recorded in another case. This is wholly impermissible in law, and by allowing such a procedure, the Courts below caused grave injustice and irreparable prejudice to the accused/revisionist. Such recording cannot be done even with the consent of the accused (AIR 1975 SC 149; 1950 Cri LJ 422). Consequently, the conviction and sentence stand vitiated. No valid demand notice, as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was ever issued. Non-compliance with the statutory requirement of a specific demand for the cheque amount cannot form the basis for conviction under Section 138 (2004 Cri LJ 5). Therefore, the conviction and sentence stand vitiated. He further submits that the accused/revisionist specifically denied and proved that the cheque in question does not bear his signature. Even according to the complainant’s own case, the cheques were issued under duress to avoid implication in a false case and therefore were not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent and would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the applicant was initially convicted under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default 6 of payment of fine further RI for 03 months by the trial Court, and being aggrieved by the said order the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court in criminal appeal No. 153/13, whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant, and partly allowed the appeal of the applicant by reducing the sentence of one year’s imprisonment to the period already under gone by the him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months, therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the appellate Court while modifying the order of learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan