2026:JHHC:19133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016 -------- Sudan Singh, S/o. Dinesh Singh, R/o. Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.- Mohanpur, Dist.- Gaya (Bihar), at present Plot No. 281, Co-operative Colony, S.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dilip Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Nakul Jha, R/o. Qr. No. L-291, P.O.- Saharpura, P.S.- Sindri, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Maltiyar, Advocate : Mr. Anukul Gaurav, Advocate : Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate C.A.V. On: 12th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 30/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- XIV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1556 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year with direction of payment of compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) the cheque amount. The learned Appellate Court in the appeal pleased to set aside the sentence 2026:JHHC:19133 2 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) of S.I. for one year by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) the cheque amount and Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) the 50% of the cheque amount as extra compensation amount. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the opposite party no. 2 Dilip Kumar Jha filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present petitioner stating inter-alia that complainant is a petty contractor. It is alleged that at the instance of present petitioner, he used to perform cable work and other civil works and invested Rs. 10 lakh in the said work. It is further alleged that after completion of the said work, the accused had received the entire amount from Airtel, but he has not paid even invested amount of the complainant to him. It is alleged that after persistent request made by the complainant, the accused issued three cheques of total Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lakh fifty thousand) drawn at HDFC, Bank. The Cheque No. 159752 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-, Cheque No.169181 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- were submitted for their encashment at Canara Bank, Sindri Branch by the complainant on 27.06.2008, but the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the accused but in spite of receiving the notice, the cheque amount was not paid within stipulated time, therefore, the complaint case was lodged. 4. After conducting inquiry in the complaint case, being C.P. Case No. 1556 of 2008 instituted by the complainant, summons was issued 2026:JHHC:19133 3 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) against the accused person for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. The petitioner appeared to the summons and contested the case before the learned Trial Court. 6. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year alongwith the compensation amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- within one month from the date of judgment. 7. The present petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad, after hearing the parties on merits and directed the petitioner to deposit the Cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-, which was received by the complainant and as negotiation for settlement was going on between the parties, also directed to deposit 50% compensation of cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- i.e., 3,25,000/- as compensation apart from the cheque amount, which has already been paid and as such, sentence was modified setting aside the S.I. for one year and substituted by payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- apart from the cheque amount, which has been assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has not disputed the impugned judgment by filing an 2026:JHHC:19133 4 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) appeal. Therefore, he has accepted the judgment of the learned Trial Court which has become final against him. The learned Appellate Court while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has committed illegality in awarding additional 50% of the cheque amount towards the compensation in this case, which was never sought for by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the learned Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal as per the provision of Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits enhancement of sentence. It is further argued that the power to enhance the sentence can only be exercised in an appeal or revision filed by the State, victim or complainant after affording opportunity of hearing to the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court enhancing the compensation amount is not warranted under the law and 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 assisted with the learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the compensation is part and parcel in awarding the sentence in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the instant case, the petitioner sought for exemption from undergoing substantive imprisonment for one year. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case which is of the year 2008 and the appeal was disposed of in the year 2016, the learned Appellate Court has rightly arrived at conclusion while giving concession from undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment has 2026:JHHC:19133 5 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of 50% of the Cheque amount, which was never granted to the complainant by the learned Trial Court. As such, the compensation amount cannot be termed as substantive sentence awarded to the accused rather as a necessary corollary, the interest and compensation are granted in such type of cases. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of R. Vijayan vs. Baby & Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 260, wherein at para-18, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “18………As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the Courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount of compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of Courts of justice.” In the above premises, it is submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court calling for any interference in this revision. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and this revision is devoid of merits fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. 2026:JHHC:19133 6 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) 10. It appears that moot question is regarding the payment of compensation. Admittedly, the complainant had received two cheques of total Rs. 6,50,000/- from the present petitioner which is fortified by the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. The learned Trial Court has simply awarded compensation of the cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- and maximum fine of Rs. 10,000/- which can be imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class apart from awarding S.I. for one year to the petitioner as substantive sentence of imprisonment. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has not filed any appeal for granting amount of compensation passed by the learned Appellate Court while reducing the sentence of imprisonment and setting aside the same has directed the present petitioner to pay further amount of compensation to the tune of 50% of the cheque amount. It is quite obvious in this case that the learned Appellate Court has not enhanced the punishment rather allowed compensation amount to the complainant which must have been paid irrespective of any sentence imposed upon the accused in terms of imprisonment and fine. The compensation cannot be equated with the sentence, therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation to the complainant does not appear to be tenable under law. Compensation is part and parcel in every judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is meant for readdressing the loss of the complainant suffered due to non-encashment of the cheque issued by the drawer. In the instant case, the complainant has received the cheque amount after 2026:JHHC:19133 7 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016) eight years. Even if the said amount is deposited in the bank, if it may carry 9% of simple interest for eight years would exceed to the compensation amount awarded by the learned Appellate Court, i.e., 3,25,000/- only. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I don’t find any legal substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and also do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court which stands dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this revision application appears to be devoid of merits and stands dismissed. 13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 14. The petitioner is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court within two months from the date of this Judgment by making payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 (complainant), failing which, the complainant (opposite party no. 2) shall be entitled to take recourse of law for realizing the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:30/06/2026 Rahul/AFR Uploaded on 01/07/2026