1 2026:CGHC:1009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 328 of 2011 Gangu Ram Dewangan S/o Ramji Dewangan, R/o Village Manohara, P.S. Bahatapara, Distt.-Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus Abhishek Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara, Distt.-Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 07/01/2026 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Raipur in Cri. Appeal No.45/2010 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I.Act) has been maintained but sentence has been reduced to 4 months S.I. from RI for one year while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/- as recorded by the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhatapara in Criminal Case No. 222/2007 vide judgment dated 13.10.2010. The appellate Court also altered the default sentence to SI for one month from RI for two months. 2. Brief facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant and the accused/applicant are both acquainted each other and on 30.01.2007 the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.09 10:19:41 +0530 2 applicant/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent/complainant and issued five Dena Bank cheques of Rs.50,000/- each against money advance. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent presented the cheques in State Bank of India, Bhatapara, however, the same was dishonoured stating that there is ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant was constrained to issue notice to the applicant/accused on 30.08.2007, which was obtained by the applicant, despite that the applicant did not make repayment. Aggrieved by the said action of the applicant/accused, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhatapara. 3. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the complaint and vide its judgment dated 13.10.2010 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to RI for one year with fine sentence of Rs.5,000/- plus default sentence. The appellate Court, vide its judgment, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence part, while enhancing fine amount, as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail since 07.06.2011 to 17.06.2011 i.e. for 11 days and he is a villager and is facing the lis since 2007, i.e. for more than 18 years and that he has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Court has been deposited before the concerned Court on 13.10.2010 and enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,000/- has also been deposited on 08.06.2011 before the appellate Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revision and submits that the appellate Court has already reduced the jail sentence imposed upon the applicant/accused, therefore, the sentence as passed by the appellate Court is adequate and there is no ground for further reducing the sentence part. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statement of complainant (P.W.1) Abhishek Agrawal and exhibited material documents, i.e., acknowledgment, cheques, notices and postal acknowledgments vide Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 available on record, I am of the considered opinion that both the learned trial Court and appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, have rightly convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same. 8. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for a period of 11 days, he is facing the lis since 2007, i.e., for more than 18 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that it would be proper and just to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of N.I.Act is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, however, fine sentence and default sentence imposed under the said offence is affirmed. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani