2026:JHHC:16768 (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 247 of 2017 -------- Dilip Kumar Mahto, S/o. Shri Sewa Ram Mahato @ Sita Ram Mahto, R/o. Vill.- Kulgo Tola, Pakatand, P.O. & P.S.- Dumri, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jageshwar Kumar Mahto, S/o. Sri Rewatlal Mahto, R/o. of Vill.- Pathaldiha Barwadih, P.O. & P.S.- Bagodar, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand. …… Opp. Parties With Cr. Revision No. 1500 of 2016 -------- Jageshwar Kumar Mahto, S/o. Sri Rewatlal Mahto, R/o. of Vill.- Pathaldiha Barwadih, P.O. & P.S.- Bagodar, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dilip Kumar Mahto, S/o. Shri Sewa Ram Mahato @ Sita Ram Mahto, R/o. Vill.- Kulgo Tola, Pakatand, P.O. & P.S.- Dumri, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017) For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1500 of 2016) 2 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) C.A.V. On: 13th May, 2026 Pronounced On: 10/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. in both cases. 2. Instant criminal revisions are directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 62/2014 dated 1st October, 2016, whereby whereunder conviction and sentence of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act passed by learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 694 of 2013, dated 13.11.2014, whereby the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto was held guilty for the offense under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo SI for three months alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, has been altered and modified by the learned Appellate Court due to in adequacy of sentence and while upholding the conviction of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act, the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence enhancing the fine amount into compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) and with default stipulation. Accordingly, criminal appeal filed by the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto being Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2014 filed by the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto were disposed of. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that there was business relationship between the complainant Jageshwar Kumar 3 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) Mahto and the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto. It is alleged that accused has taken a tractor and trailer having registration number JH10AH0737 and JH10AH0983 respectively from the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto on monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/- for the period of five months. It is alleged that vehicle was used by the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto for the said five months, thereafter, handed over to the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto. It is further alleged that in order to discharge his liability accused Dilip Kumar Mahto had issued a cheque bearing No. 013516 dated 11.02.2013 of Rs. 80,000/- (rupees eighty thousand) in favor of the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto showing that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was sufficient amount in his account to meet the liability of cheque amount, which was presented by the complainant in his SBI account situated at Isri Bazar Branch, but the same was returned with a note "insufficient fund" and received by the complainant on 30.04.2013. Thereafter, complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto sent a legal notice making demand of the cheque amount from the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto, but no response was made within time. Then, this complaint case was lodged by the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto. 4. On the basis of above complaint, accused Dilip Kumar Mahto appeared before the court and contested the case. 5. In the course of trial, complainant has examined three witnesses including himself and also adduced following documentary evidences:- I. Exhibit 1- Cheque No. 013516 of Axis Bank dated 11.02.2013. 4 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) II. Exhibit 2- SBI Payment slip dated 26.02.2013 III. Exhibit 3- Cheque return memo of Axis Bank Dated 07.03.2013 IV. Exhibit 4- Legal Notice V. Exhibit 5- Registered Postal receipt VI. Exhibit 6- Acknowledgment 6. On the other hand, the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto himself examined as DW-1 and also filed statement of Account No. 91001002134670 for the period from 01.09.2012 to 28.02.2013 which was marked as Exhibit-A. 7. The learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have concurrently held the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, on the basis of evidence available on record. Since the fine amount was imposed by the learned Trial Court of Rs. 10,000/- which was modified by the learned Appellate Court as compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- which was the cheque amount issued by the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto. Cr. Revision No. 247 of 2017 has been preferred by the accused Dilip Kumar Mahto while Cr. Revision No. 1500 of 2016 has been preferred by the complainant for enhancement of sentence. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto has submitted that both the court below have failed to consider the documentary evidence of the petitioner which clearly shows that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was sufficient fund in his account and it is also obvious that Rs. 1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only.) was already paid to the complainant Jageshwar Kumar 5 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) Mahto against the rent amount of Rs. 80,000/- (rupees eighty thousand only). Therefore, no presumption under Section 138 of the N.I. Act arises against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during pendency of this Revision application, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 15.01.2025 through Demand Draft which was handed over to the learned counsel of the opposite party no. 2 Jageshwar Kumar Mahto by order of the Court. So far the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- is concerned, the petitioner was ready to pay which reflects from the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by this Court but compromise between the parties could not be arrieved. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have committed serious error of law in not appreciating the fact disclosed by Exhibit- A, statement of account filed by the petitioner that complainant has withdrawn Rs. 80,000 on 21.11.2012 and Rs. 45,000 on 24.11.2012 through two cheques. Thus, he was not entitled to get any money from the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto. As such, impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:- 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Jageshwar Kumar Mahto pressing another Cr. Revision No. 1500 of 2016 filed before this court has submitted that although the learned Trial Court has passed inadequate sentence against the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto which was appealed against by the complainant but the remedy as sought for was not granted to the complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto, inasmuch as the twice the amount of cheque must be 6 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) granted as compensation, but only the cheque amount was allowed as compensation by the learned Appellate Court. The documentary evidence as Exhibit-A has categorically been examined and appreciated in the light of contention of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto and was found to be not relevant with the present case. The petitioner Dilip Kuamr Mahto has not filed any statement of account of the date, when the cheque was presented before the bank and it was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund. The true fact is that on the date of presentation of cheque, there was no sufficient amount in the account of petitioner to honour the cheque. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. There is no dispute at all that both the parties entered into transaction of hiring the tractor of complainant Jageshwar Kumar Mahto by the present petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto on monthly payment of Rs. 16,000/- and after using five months, the tractor was handed over to the complainant. The petitioner with a view to discharge his liability had issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient fund and after legal formalities the complainant case was instituted. 11. It appears that in order to negate the liability, the petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto has filed Exhibit- A statement of account only till the date of 28.02.2013, when there was balance amount to satisfy the cheque amount, but when the cheque was produced by the complainant no sufficient amount was in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner has deliberately failed to produce the statement of 7 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) account at the relevant time when the cheque was produced for encashment. 12. So far the liability already discharged by paying Rs. 1,25,000/- through separate cheque is concerned, that has no relevancy with the present transaction between the parties. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. 13. However, during pendency of these revisions talk of compromise took place between the parties for considerable period, but only partial payment of Rs. 40,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner through demand draft, which has been withdrawn by the complainant. Thereafter, no compromise was entered into between the parties and no remaining amount has been paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- has also not been paid. Hence, the case was heard on merits. 14. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions, petitioners have not pointed out any material irregularity or the procedural error in the impugned judgment requires interference in the concurrent finding of both the Court below. However, since, partial payment of compensation amount has been paid by the accused/petitioner Dilip Kumar Mahto to the complainant during pendency of these petitions. Hence, some modification in the sentence is required. 15. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 62/2014 is hereby upheld and confirmed, subject to the 8 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 247 of 2017 with Cr. Rev. 1500 of 2016) variation that Rs. 40,000/- compensation is to be given by the accused petitioner to the complainant after realizing the same and in default, proportionate sentence of three months S.I. will be imposed against the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, these revisions are disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 17. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for information and needful. 19. Let the Trial Court records also be sent back to the concerned Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated:10/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026