1 CGHC010006182016 2026:CGHC:27735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 644 of 2016 Yuvraj Gupta S/o Late Basant Kumar Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Baniyapara Dhamdha, P.S. and Tahsil Dhamdha, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, … Applicant versus Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Surana Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Near State Bank, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. In compliance with the Court's order dated 05.05.2026, a bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. Today, when the matter is called, the applicant is present before this Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. 2. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.08 11:24:06 +0530 2 Criminal Appeal No. 58/2016, arising out of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), in Complaint Case No. 851/2013, whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while modifying the sentence. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the complainant/respondent within two months from the date of the judgment. In default of payment of the said compensation within the stipulated period, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. During the pendency of the said complaint, the complainant and the accused entered into a compromise and executed a compromise agreement outside the Court, whereby the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. Subsequently, upon the accused's failure to pay the amount agreed under the compromise, the accused issued a cheque dated 03.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque before his bank, but it was dishonoured on 05.06.2013. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice dated 02.07.2013 was issued to the accused, which was duly served upon him. However, despite receipt of the notice, the accused failed to make payment within the statutory period. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned JMFC, Durg. 3 4. In the aforesaid complaint case, the accused entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.-1, Deepak Sharma, while the accused examined himself as D.W.-1, Yuvraj, in defence. The complainant exhibited seven documents in support of his case. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 23.02.2016, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned trial Court also awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a further direction that, in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. In the appeal, the accused specifically contended that the complaint had arisen out of a compromise agreement executed in an earlier complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. It was further contended that there was a discrepancy in the amount allegedly due. In support of his submissions, the accused relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5 SCC 338. After considering the submissions and the material available on record, the learned appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2016, modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, while affirming the direction regarding payment of compensation. However, the compensation payable was reduced to Rs.4,10,000/-, after giving credit for 10% of the compensation amount already deposited 4 during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the present criminal revision has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant and the accused entered into a compromise and executed a compromise agreement outside the Court, whereby the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- to the complainant, out of the said amount, only Rs. 70,000/- remains outstanding. He further undertakes that the applicant shall deposit the balance amount within a period of 45 days, failing which the applicant shall undergo the sentence awarded by the learned appellate Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly supports the impugned judgment and submits that the accused was directed by the Lok Adalat to pay the balance amount on 05.07.2026, however, the same has not been paid. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and directed that, in the event of default in payment of the compensation amount, the applicant/accused shall undergo an additional period of two months' simple imprisonment. In the appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction of the applicant and modifying the sentence till rising of the 5 Court and maintained the compensation amount of Rs. 4,10,000/-. to the complainant/respondent within two months from the date of the judgment. In default of payment of the said compensation within the stipulated period, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the NI Act. 10 It transpires from the record that the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, besides being directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant and the accused entered into a compromise and executed a compromise agreement outside the Court, whereby the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- to the complainant, out of the said amount, only Rs. 70,000/- remains outstanding, and the applicant undertakes to deposit the said amount within a period of 45 days from today, failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve out the jail sentence as has been awarded by the appellate Court, in default of payment of fine. 11 However, the complainant/respondent is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court concerned for withdrawing the said balance compensation amount. 12 Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of to the extent indicated herein-above. 6 13. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti