1 CGHC010032462016 2026:CGHC:27802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 876 of 2016 Shrimati Rashmi Bilaiya W/o Shri B.K. Bilaiya, Aged About 27 Years 60 B, Fase 5 A, Maitri Nagar, Bhilai, Thana - Nevai, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus Rajendra Singh Saggu Kukku S/o Late Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saggu Aged About 50 Years R/o 1820, Sanatan Dharm Mandir Road, Gorakhpur, Thana Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 877 of 2016 Shrimati Rashmi Bilaiya W/o Shri B.K. Bilaiya, R/o 60 B, Fase 5 A, Maitri Nagar, Bhilai, Thana Nevai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Rajendra Singh Saggu Kukku S/o Late Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saggu Aged About 50 Years R/o 1820, Sanatan Dharm Mandir Road, Gorakhpur, Thana Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh --- Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 CRR No. 875 of 2016 Shrimati Rashmi Bilaiya W/o Shri B.K. Bilaiya, Aged About 18 Years 60 B, Fase 5 A, Maitri Nagar, Bhilai, Thana - Nevai, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Rajendra Singh Saggu Kukku S/o Late Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saggu Aged About 50 Years R/o 1820, Sanatan Dharm Mandir Road, Gorakhpur, Thana Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh ---- Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant :Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent :Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohishek Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06/07/2026 1. Since the applicant in all the three criminal revisions is the same and the revisions arise out of separate judgments and orders passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Nos. 27/2016, 28/2016 and 29/2016, involving identical questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. These criminal revisions have been preferred by the applicant/complainant being aggrieved by the separate judgments and orders dated 14.07.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional 3 Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Nos.27/2016, 28/2016 and 29/2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and the compensation awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case Nos.1323/2011, 1318/2011 and 1630/2011, respectively, while modifying the default sentence from two months' simple imprisonment to three months' simple imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revisions seeking enhancement thereof. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the applicant and the non-applicant were well acquainted with each other and on account of such acquaintance, the non-applicant had borrowed a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the applicant for his business requirements. Towards part repayment of the said liability, the non-applicant issued four cheques drawn on his account maintained with the State Bank of India, Tularam Chowk Branch, Jabalpur, namely Cheque No.549660 dated 04.04.2008 for Rs.50,000/-, Cheque Nos.549659 and 549661 both dated 02.05.2008 for Rs.50,000/- each and Cheque No.549663 dated 13.07.2008 for Rs.50,000/-. Upon presentation by the applicant, all the cheques were dishonoured. Thereafter, separate statutory demand notices were issued to the non-applicant however, despite service/refusal of notice, the non-applicant failed to make payment within the prescribed period, compelling the applicant to institute three 4 separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg convicted the non- applicant in all the three complaints and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.85,000/- in two cases and Rs.1,70,000/- in the remaining case under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., with a default sentence of two months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and the sentence, the applicant preferred criminal appeals seeking enhancement. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the findings of conviction, substantive sentence and compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, while modifying the default sentence from two months' simple imprisonment to three months' simple imprisonment. Hence, the present criminal revisions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that the respondent has rightly been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by both the Courts below. However, it is contended that the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate and does not commensurate with the liability arising out of the dishonoured cheques. It is further submitted that although the respondent has taken a plea that the amount covered under the dishonoured cheques has already been paid to the applicant, the said plea is not borne out from the evidence available on record and no cogent material has been 5 produced to substantiate the same. It is argued that both the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the aforesaid aspect while determining the quantum of compensation. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded in favour of the applicant be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/non-applicant supports the impugned judgments and submits that the respondent had already discharged the liability arising out of the dishonoured cheques by making payment to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant's husband and the respondent were well acquainted with each other and had business dealings, pursuant to which the financial transactions in question had taken place. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. Accordingly, it is prayed that their present criminal revisions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the impugned judgments as well as the record, it transpires that the respondent and the applicant's husband were 6 well acquainted with each other, on account of which they had financial/business dealings. It was in the course of such dealings that the respondent had borrowed money from the applicant and towards discharge of the said liability, issued the cheques in question. Upon dishonour of the cheques and failure of the respondent to make payment despite service of the statutory notices, the applicant instituted three separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial Court, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment along with payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the entire evidence, found no infirmity in the findings of conviction and the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court and affirmed the same, while modifying the default sentence from two months' simple imprisonment to three months' simple imprisonment. Though it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the amount covered under the dishonoured cheques has already been paid to the applicant but the said plea is not borne out from the material available on record and no cogent evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same. 9. Moreover, accused/respondent namely Rajendra Singh Saggu Kukku has also preferred Criminal Revision Nos. Nos.769/2016, 773/2016 and 774/2016 for setting aside the impugned orders as 7 passed by the trial Court as well as affirmed by the appellate Court. The aforementioned revisions were also listed before this Court today along with the present criminal revisions and upon hearing the parties, have been disposed of by a separate order passed today with a direction to the respondent to pay the balance compensation amount within a period of three months from today before the concerned trial Court, failing which learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for securing the custody of the applicant to undergo the sentence as ordered by the appellate Court, in default of payment of compensation. 10. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, the above present criminal revisions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court as well as Appellate Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal