2026:JHHC:20785 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 951 of 2017 ------ Rajesh Kumar Saw, S/o Bhola Saw, R/o Village – Simaldih Shiv Mandir, near Laxmi Kirana Dukan, Hirapur, P.O. – Damodarpur, P.S. – Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abodh Kumar Mondal, S/o Late Ranglal Mondal, R/o Village – Damodarpur, P.O. – Damodarpur, P.S. – Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad. .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. ------ J U D G M E N T Dated 13.07.2026 By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1394 of 2013 (T.R. No. 709/2016), whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him S.I. for six months and a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. with default stipulation and judgment dated 15.06.2017 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- IIIrd at Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2016 by which, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 2026:JHHC:20785 2 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint petition before the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1394 of 2013 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner in which it is alleged that the petitioner took a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him to purchase a new Tempo for his son from the showroom, but he fails to do so and the opposite party no. 2 asked the petitioner to return his money and after several efforts, petitioner gave him a cheque of Rs. 39,000/- which was deposited in the Bank, but same was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. It is further alleged that he was served a legal notice to the petitioner for the demand of cheque amount, but the cheque amount has not repaid by the petitioner, hence the present case has been filed against the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by an order dated 01.06.2013 and after enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner an after appearance, the accusation of substance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was explained to the petitioner, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him as stated above. 2026:JHHC:20785 3 6. Against the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate court, which has also been dismissed. The judgment passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per direction of the learned trial court and appellate court, the petitioner is depositing draft of Rs. 60,000/-, which was awarded to the opposite party no. 2 as compensation and the same is also accepted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 without any objection as full and final satisfaction of the loan amount involved in this case. However, no joint compromise petition has been filed due to physical inability of the petitioner. The petitioner has already undergone custody of 08 days, out of six months imprisonment awarded to him. Since, petitioner has paid the compensation amount, therefore, the period of sentence may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. 8. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that now the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance as the loan amount involved in this case has already been paid to the opposite party no. 2. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of substantive period of sentence, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 2026:JHHC:20785 4 10. Petitioner is on bail. As such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 11. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. 12. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) July 13, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on 15/07/2026