1 2026:CGHC:8696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 806 of 2016 Dilip Soni S/o Tukaram Soni, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Varsha Jwellers, Main Road Crossing Ranveerpur Charbhanta, Post Ranveerpur, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Gajendra Kumar Soni S/o Sewaram Soni, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Pandariya, P.S. Gandai, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 18/02/2026 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.02/2013 arising out of judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.300/2011 (in J.M.F.C. record and in Appellate Court, the number has been mentioned as Criminal Case PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.18 17:38:07 +0530 2 No.300/2011 whereas in judgment of J.M.F.C., it has been mentioned as Criminal Case no.302/2011), wherein the accused Dilip has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced till rising of the Court along with further imposition compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-, in default of payment of compensation, additional rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the Gajendra Kumar (respondent herein) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the Dilip - applicant stating that they are relatives and the applicant had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 01.06.2011 and as such, the applicant has given three cheques bearing Nos.100749, 100750, 100751 each of Rs.50,000/- of IDBI Bank, Branch Durg. It is alleged that when the said cheques were presented by the respondent for clearance, the same were dishonoured stating the reason as “insufficient funds”, and after service of notice to the accused, the amount has not been paid, which led to the filing of complaint case by the respondent before JMFC, Rajnandgaon against the applicant. 3. Learned J.M.F.C. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, after appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 04.06.2016 has affirmed the judgment as shown in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by both the learned Courts, without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the complainant has not established the service of notice upon the applicant. As such, the 3 impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents on record. 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that a total of three cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- were issued by the accused/applicant in favour of the complainant, and the signatures on the cheques are also not disputed. As per the statement of P.W.1, Gajendra Kumar Soni, the accused had issued three cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each to him, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, a notice dated 12/07/2011 was issued to the accused; however, despite receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the accused did not examine himself. Consequently, the evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted. Considering the statement of P.W.1, Gajendra Kumar Soni, which is supported by the cheques (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3), the bank memos (Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6), the postal receipt (Ex.P.9), and the acknowledgment (Ex.P.10), the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court convicted the applicant. 7. Upon overall consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant remains unrebutted, and the sentence imposed upon the accused, along with the compensation awarded, is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, are based on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference. 4 8. Consequently, the revision preferred by the accused/applicant being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash