1 CGHC010014732015 2026:CGHC:35619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 286 of 2015 Virendra Chouhan S/o Moti Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Steel Nagar, Camp-1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Proprietor-Amit Construction, Steel Nagar Ward No. 19, Camp-1, Sangram Chowk, Bhilai, Tahsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Omprakash Rajak S/o Banshilal Aged About 43 Years R/o Plot No. 522/11, Road -3, Ashish Nagar East, Risali Bhilai, Police Station - Nevai, Tahsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Md. Altamaz Zaheer Ali, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 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 29.01.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.280/2014 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Durg (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Durg (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 788/2013, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 02 months. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, before the trial Court against the applicant. In complaint, it is submitted by the respondent that on 18.10.2012, the applicant purchased ply door from the shop of respondent amounting to Rs. 42,000/- and for payment of amount, the applicant had given a cheque to the respondent bearing No. 069673 dated 04.06.2013 of State Bank of India Risali Bhilai Branch amounting to Rs. 42,000/-, which was presented by the respondent in the State Bank of India and the same was dishonoured on 13.06.2013 with a note of insufficient amount in the account of applicant, therefore, the respondent sent a registered legal notice through his Advocate on 17.06.2013, but the applicant had failed to pay the amount, therefore the respondent filed complaint. On the basis of material evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 23.08.2014, the learned trial Court found the applicant guilty under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 and sentenced him to undergo 1 month S.I. and further directed the applicant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 46,000/- to the respondent and in default of payment of compensation, 15 days additional simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court bearing criminal appeal No. 280/2014. The respondent also filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment to the extent of awarded minimum sentence, which was registered as criminal appeal No. 0000288/2014. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 29.01.2015, the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, this revision. 3 3. 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 further submits that the appellate Court has imposed the amount of Rs. 50,000/- upon the applicant, but the same has not been paid. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant shall deposit the said amount. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent, would strongly support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 simple imprisonment for 1 month and further directed the applicant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 46,000/- to the respondent and in default of payment of compensation, 15 days additional simple imprisonment. Subsequently, being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal, whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and sentenced him to under go till rising of the Court and directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months of simple imprisonment. 4 7. I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by imposing a fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, in default of payment of fine amount 02 months of simple imprisonment. 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 remaining fine amount or not, he submits that the applicant is ready to pay the fine amount imposed by the learned Appellate Court and prays for some time to do so. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon him by the learned appellate 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 Appellate Court. 10. On deposit of the said amount by the applicant, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent No.1/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