1 2025:CGHC:59523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 515 of 2014 Govind Chauhan S/o. S.S. Chauhan Aged About 34 Years R/o. Chaurasiya Colony, Opposite Teacher P.S. Thakur’s Home, Distt. Raiur 492001, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Domin, W/o. Jitendra Kumar Sonboir, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Vill. Jungera, P.O. Taraud, P.S. and Tah. Balod C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant 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. 155/2013, arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2012 passed in criminal case No.261/2011 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.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 . 2. Facts of the case are that on 04.10.2010 the respondent/ complainant alleged that the applicant/accused, along with his brother-in-law Prakash Dehri, resident of Changorabhanta, Raipur, jointly demanded money from the complainant for securing employment for his brothers-Vishnu Kumar, Lugendra, and Dharmesh Kumar. On this assurance, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per person. When no employment was provided, the complainant lodged a written report at the police station. Thereafter, the applicant entered into a compromise with the complainant and, admitting receipt of the amount, got an Ikrarnama (agreement) written by his brother-in-law on 11.03.2010, assuring that the money would be refunded through cheques at Balod. He issued cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each dated 31.05.2010 and 30.06.2010, and a cheque for Rs. 1,70,000/- dated 31.07.2010. Prior to executing the Ikrarnama, the applicant had also paid Rs. 80,000/- in cash and had promised to pay the remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. 3. When the complainant presented the said cheques on 08.07.2010 at the State Bank of India, Balod Branch, they were dishonoured due to insufÏcient funds in the applicant’s account. Upon intimation, the applicant asked the complainant to re-deposit the cheques after depositing money in his bank account. The complainant again presented the cheques on 19.08.2010, but they were once again dishonoured on 3 27.08.2010. Consequently, through his advocate, the complainant issued a registered legal notice on 13.09.2010 (Exhibit P-14). Despite receiving the notice, the applicant did not make payment within the statutory period, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 4. During trial, the complainant examined himself, whereas in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the cheques had been given to his brother-in-law Prakash Dehri. In defence, the applicant examined Dr. Ku. Sunanda Dhengre, Handwriting Expert, under Section 391 Cr.P.C., pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision No. 752/2013. 5. Based on this, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, District Balod, vide order dated 16.04.2012 in Criminal Case No. 261/2011, 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. 6. 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. 155/13, whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the applicant, 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 4 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 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 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 that the revision be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant be set aside with all consequential reliefs. 5 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. 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. 155/13, whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the applicant, 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 orders 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. 6 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