1 2026:CGHC:7867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 626 of 2012 Vijay Tandekar S/o Janiram Tandakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Ram Nagar Sikola Bhata, Ward Number 14, Durg, Distt. - Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus Sadan Jaal S/o Kashinath Jaal Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhamdha Naka, Kalish Nagar, Durg C.G., ... Respondent (complainant) For Applicant : Shri Mahesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : None, though served. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 12/02/2026 Heard. 1. This criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2012 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.72/2012 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act) and sentence of SI for 6 months along with fine amount to Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to pay fine amount/compensation, further sentence of 1 month SI, as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg vide judgment dated Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.02.12 16:32:08 +0530 2 26.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.940/2011. 2. Brief facts of the case, in short, are that the complainant and the accused/applicant both are acquainted each other and the applicant/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- from the respondent/complainant, but the said amount has not been repaid to the respondent, thereafter, the applicant issued a cheque amounting to Rs.1,71,000/- which was presented by the complainant in the Bank on 02.06.2010, however, the same was dishonoured. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of J.M.F.C. Durg 3. The learned J.M.F.C. vide its judgment dated 26.03.2012 recorded finding of conviction and sentence of the applicant and in appeal, the learned appellate Court affirmed the same, 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 23.07.2012 to 31.10.2012 and had no criminal antecedents and that he is facing the lis since 2010, i.e. for more than 15 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the record. 6. Considering the statement of complainant (P.W.1) Sadan Jaal and other evidence and exhibited documents available on record, 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. 7. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the above 3 facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant was in jail from 23.07.2012 to 31.10.2012, he is facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for more than 15 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 8. 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, the payment of fine / compensation amount and default sentence imposed by both the Courts under the said offence is affirmed. 9. 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