1 CGHC010273872016 2026:CGHC:36308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 106 of 2016 D. K. Rao S/o Late Chandrika Rao Aged About 38 Years R/o Om Residency, House No. 202, Geetanjali Enclave, Ring Road No. 2, Police Station - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Civil And Rev. District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ramkishore Kaushik S/o Prahlad Singh Kaushik Aged About 35 Years R/o Seepat, Police Station - Seepat, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.101/2014 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), affirming the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 2471/2014, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, against the applicant, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby alleged that the applicant had issued a cheque of U.T.I. Bank bearing cheque no. 164190/3 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- to the non- applicant on 29.11.2006 regarding payment of amount towards supply of cement, sand and construction of road. The above cheque was presented by the respondent before the Bank for withdrawal of amount, which was dishonoured and returned by the Bank on 28.05.2007 with a note of insufficient amount in the said account of applicant. It was further alleged that the respondent has sent a demand notice to the applicant, but he did not pay the amount mentioned in the cheque, therefore the respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The applicant denied the allegations and pleaded that he has not guilty, therefore the plea of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced her as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the judged of trial Court, the applicants preferred the criminal appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has affirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. He 3 further submits that the appellate Court has imposed the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- upon the applicant, but the same has not been paid, and the applicant has undergone about 5 days in jail. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant shall deposit the said amount. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would strongly support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it transpires that the applicant was initially convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the trial Court, whereby the applicant was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further directed the applicant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent and in default of payment of compensation, 2 months additional rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently, being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order and conviction passed by the trial Court. I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by affirming the order of the trial Court. 8. Now, considering the question of sentence, on a pointed query made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether he is willing to pay the fine amount or not, he submits that the applicant is ready to pay the 4 fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court and prays for some time to do so. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed upon him by the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today, in default of payment within the stipulated time, the applicant shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 10. On deposit of the said amount by the applicant, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant without delay. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision stands disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar