1 2026:CGHC:1238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1081 of 2018 1 - Anil S/o R.K. Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramavally House No. R-07/12 Bodari, Police Station Chakarbhatha, Tahsil And District -Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... applicant (s) versus 1 - Manoj S/o Shri Kamlakant Dubey Aged About 37 Years R/o Chakarbhatha Camp Police Station Chakarbhatha, Tahsil And District -Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For applicant (s) : Mr. B. L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. P. Kurre, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant against the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Cr.A. No. 86/2018 whereby the criminal appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilha, Dist- Bilaspur in Criminal Complaint SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.14 14:13:38 +0530 2 Case No. 190/2017 has been affirmed. 2. The subject matter in brief are that the applicant was an accused in complaint case filed by the complainant/ respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short N.I. Act). The said complaint was filed by the complainant with the allegation that the accused had given a cheque to the complainant for Rs. 20,000/- dated 30.12.2016 bearing cheque No. 076134 which was of Axis Bank, Raigarh for discharge of his liabilities against the sale consideration of spare parts. When the said cheque was deposited in the Bank account of the complainant, it was dishonored by the payee bank on 17.02.2017 and thereafter, after service of legal demand notice, the complaint case was filed. After a full fledged trial of complaint case, the learned trial Court has passed its judgment on 21.03.2018 and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced for S.I. for 03 months with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall further undergo S.I. for 1 month. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court was challenged by the accused before the learned appellate Court by filing the criminal appeal. After hearing the parties, the criminal appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2018 which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not challenging its conviction, however, he is praying for reduction of his sentence for the period already undergone by him on the ground that 3 the offence of Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not provided any minimum sentence. The purpose of sentencing the accused to recover the amount of cheque. The applicant pursuant to the order dated 16.10.2024, deposited Rs. 40,000/- before the learned trial Court on 23.10.2024, out of the total amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court. He would also submit that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was already deposited by the applicant pursuant to the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by this Court when the applicant was ordered to be released on bail and thus, he has already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- as ordered by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the revision may be allowed by reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant for the period already undergone by him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the deposition of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the applicant and would submit that the respondent/ complainant may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. Since, the applicant is not disputing his conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act, this Court need not to re-examine the validity of the conviction, however, from perusal of the complaint as well as the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque was issued on 30.12.2016 which was dishonored by the payee Bank on 17.02.2017 and demand notice was issued to the accused on 25.02.2017 and thereafter, the complaint under Section 4 138 of N.I. Act was filed on 10.07.2017 and drawing the statutory presumption against the accused and in favour of the complainant, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant, in which I do not find any infirmity and his conviction is hereby affirmed. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the offence of Section 138 of N.I. Act, does not provided any minimum sentence, the applicant was remained in jail from 27.09.2018 till 03.10.2018 and as per the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire amount of compensation has been deposited before the learned trial Court, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the nature of offence and also that the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, there is no need to further send the applicant in jail, pursuant to the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 9. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction of the applicant, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The compensation part of the sentence shall remain intact. 10. The respondent/ complainant is entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the applicant before the learned trial Court. 11. With the aforesaid reduction/ modification of the sentence of the applicant, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. 12. Records of the trial Court and appellate Court be sent back. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika