1 2025:CGHC:24725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 502 of 2017 Fuleshwar Yadav S/o Shri Gulab Ram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o House Of Sobhitram, Sankra Road, Bandhapara, Nagri, Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Rashmi Yadav W/o Shri Rameshwar Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Mahima Sagar Ward, Dhamtari, Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.01.2015 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 93/2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), wherein the applicant has been convicted under RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short 'the NI Act') and sentenced him to pay fine amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (As a compensation shall pay to the complainant/respondent No.1) and in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per the complaint case of the respondent No. 1 is that the complainant filed a criminal complaint for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Interalia that the present appellant was taken the borrowed money from the complainant as sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- and the accused/applicant has returned the money by way of cheque as well as the cheque No. 387315 dated 22.09.2012 of Dena Bank, Branch, Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) of Rs. 3,60,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1. The complainant deposited the aforesaid cheque through its banker which is on 01.10.2012 in the ICICI bank, Branch Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) but it was returned back without collection with an endorsement that the insufficient amount of the bank account of the applicant on 03.10.2012. The aforesaid cheque was returned to the complainant on 03.10.2012. The complainant issued a notice to the applicant through his counsel on 18.10.2012 within the statutory period. The notice was received by the applicant and the cheque amount was not paid to the respondent No. 1, thereafter the complainant filed the Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant. During the course of trial, the charges under section 138 of the NI Act was framed against the applicant but he denied the charges. The complainant has examined himself and the applicant has also examined defense witnesses to prove the charges against the applicant. At the end of trial, the learned trial court has convicted the present accused/applicant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to suffer S.I. as indicated 3 above. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the present applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/appellate Court (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). By passing the impugned judgment learned appellate Court pleased to partly allow the appeal of the applicant and change the conviction and sentence as indicated above. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced him to pay fine amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- which should be paid to the complainant/respondent No.1, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the applicant had borrowed Rs. 3,60,000/- from the respondent No.1, out of which he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs, and he has given the assurance that the rest amount shall also be paid by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and available records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has 4 not committed any illegality or infirmity while affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thus, the convictions are affirmed. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the case is of the year 2017 and thereafter more than 8 years has been elapsed, further considering that the applicant had borrowed Rs. 3,60,000/- from the respondent No.1, out of which he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs, and he has given the assurance that the rest amount shall also be paid by him. Therefore, the remaining amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act, within a period of 03 months from today before the trial Court concerned, which shall be paid to the complainant/respondent No.1 as a compensation, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 8. The criminal revision is accordingly disposed of. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original records, to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal / Rajshekhar