1 2025:CGHC:59801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 363 of 2016 Kapoorchand Sahu S/o Late Shri Maharathi Aged About 36 Years R/o Kera Road, Bhatapara, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Vashu Kesharwani S/o Late Shri Satyendra Aged About 21 Years R/o Old Chandaniyapara, Near Bajrang Bali Mandir Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Patel, 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 28.03.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2015 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2014 passed by Learned JMFC, Janjgir ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.11 11:27:28 +0530 2 (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 157/2013, whereby, the applicant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 138 of the Negtiable Instruments Act S.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 25.10.2012 the accused/respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) from the applicant for his professional requirements with a clear assurance to repay the said amount on or before 25.01.2013, and for securing such repayment he also issued two cheques in favour of the applicant. After expiry of the agreed period, when the applicant demanded repayment, the accused/respondent avoided the liability and did not respond, compelling the applicant to deposit both the said cheques in the concerned bank, which were dishonoured in February 2013. However, despite service of statutory legal notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused/respondent neither replied nor made payment, due to which the applicant was constrained to file Complaint Case under Section 138 NI Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, but failed to pass any order 3 for return of the loan/debt amount, vide judgment dated 10.04.2014. The applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 43/2014 before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, which was dismissed on 19.11.2014 on the ground of maintainability, compelling the petitioner to approach the this Court by filing Cr.M.P. No. 1144/2015, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 05.01.2015 with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29/2015 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, challenging the non-grant of compensation/return of amount, but the same too came to be dismissed on 28.03.2016 on technical grounds, thereby affirming the judgment of the trial Court, hence the applicant has filed this present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and have passed the impugned orders contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that both the complainant witnesses have fully supported the case of the applicant, and even the learned trial Court has categorically held the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act proved and accordingly convicted the accused/respondent for one year S.I. with fine of ₹5,000/-. However, despite recording such clear findings, the trial Court committed a grave error in not directing return/payment of the loan/debt amount, and the Appellate Court has also mechanically dismissed the appeal on 4 technical grounds, thereby confirming the erroneous order of the Trial Court. Hence, the orders passed by both the Courts below, being against the eye of law and causing serious prejudice to the applicant, are liable to be modified/set aside to the extent of granting appropriate relief. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have passed well-reasoned orders which call for no interference. It is contended that the alleged loan transaction between the parties was never proved by any independent or reliable document except the bare version of the petitioner, and the cheques in question were given only as security without any legally enforceable debt. It is further submitted that the applicant has already availed multiple remedies before the Revisional Court, the Appellate Court, as well as before this Court, and after failing in all such proceedings, he cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issues in the present revision. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 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 Appellate Court held that since the trial Court imposed one year simple imprisonment along with a fine of only Rs.5,000/-, compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. could be granted only from the said 5 fine amount, and compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. was not applicable. It further observed that if the complainant was dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the fine or sentence, he ought to have challenged the same, as the trial Court was empowered to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount. The Appellate Court also noted that the respondent’s earlier appeal had already been dismissed on 19.11.2014, confirming the trial Court’s judgment, and since a revision against that order is pending before this Court, the same cannot be re-examined in the present appeal. Holding the appeal to be legally unsustainable and incapable of granting the desired relief, the Appellate Court dismissed the same with parties bearing their own costs. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Appellant Court while affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek