1 2025:CGHC:59525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 516 of 2014 Govind Chauhan S/o S. S. Chauhan Aged About 34 Years Chaurasiya Colony, Opposite Teacher P.S. Thakur’s Home District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Shriram Sonboir (Dead) Lrs Jitendra Kumar Sonboir (Dead) Through Lrs. 1(B) Damin S/o W/o Jitendra Kumar Sonobir 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. 154/2013, arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2012 passed in criminal case No.259/2011 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 the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 further directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Facts of the case are that on 04.10.2010 alleging that the applicant/accused, along with his brother-in-law Prakash Dehri, resident of Changorabhata, Raipur, jointly demanded money from the complainant on the pretext of providing employment to the complainant’s brothers, namely Vishnu Kumar, Lugendra, and Dharmesh Kumar. It was alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per person, amounting to a total of Rs. 4,50,000/-, in cash. When the accused failed to provide employment, the complainant lodged a written complaint at the police station. Thereafter, the applicant entered into a compromise with the complainant and, on 15.10.2006, accepted the receipt of the amount. Subsequently, on 11.03.2010, the appellant got an acknowledgment deed (Ikrarnama) written through his brother-in-law, promising to return the amount through a cheque at Balod, and accordingly issued a cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the complainant on 31.07.2010 for payment. Prior to the execution of the acknowledgment deed, the appellant had also paid Rs. 80,000/- in cash to the complainant and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 31.07.2010 before the State Bank of India, Balod Branch, the cheque was returned unpaid due to insufÏcient funds in the account of the accused/appellant. Upon being informed by the complainant, the appellant requested that the cheque be presented again after depositing sufÏcient funds in his bank account. Accordingly, the complainant again presented the cheque on 27.08.2010, but the same was dishonoured on 09.09.2010. Thereafter, 3 the complainant, through his advocate, sent a registered legal notice dated 13.09.2010 (Exhibit P-14) to the applicant/accused. Despite receipt of the notice, the applicant failed to return the amount within the stipulated period, which led to the institution of the present complaint. 3. Upon framing of the charge, the applicant denied the offence. The complainant examined himself in support of his case. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant claimed innocence and stated that all three cheques had been given to his brother-in-law, Prakash Dehri. In defence, in light of the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision No. 753/2013, the applicant examined Dr. Ku. Sunanda Dhenge (Defence Witness No. 1), a handwriting expert, under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Based on this, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, District Balod, vide order dated 16.04.2012 in Criminal Case No. 259/2011, 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. 65,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.04.212, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Balod, District Balod in criminal appeal No. 154/13, 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 4 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 moths. 6. 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 conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not satisfy the legal standards of scrutiny, particularly when the trial Court, despite opting for a summons-trial procedure, failed to adhere to the mandatory requirements of Chapter 20 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the conviction stands vitiated as no evidence was recorded in the post-summoning stage neither the complainant nor his witnesses were examined and the trial Court relied solely on the pre- summoning afÏdavit filed under Section 145 of the N.I. Act, which cannot substitute the mandatory post-summoning evidence. It is contended that even the so-called cross-examination is merely a carbon copy of evidence from another case, which is impermissible in law and has caused grave prejudice to the accused. Counsel further submits that there was no statutory demand notice as required under Section 138, and therefore conviction is legally unsustainable. It is Urged that the applicant had specifically denied and proved that the cheque does not bear his signature and, even as per the complainant’s own version, the cheque was allegedly taken under duress and not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Thus, there is not even an iota of admissible evidence to sustain the conviction or the compensation order. Hence, it is prayed 5 that the revision be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant be set aside with all consequential reliefs. 7. 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. 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. 65,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default 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. 154/13, 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 moths, therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate Court is just and proper. 10. 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. 6 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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