Mahasamund Chhattisgarh v. Roopram Sen
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 175 of 2025 Manish Kumar Maheshwari S/o Bharat Bhushan Maheshwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Tumgaon Road, Ps And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Roopram Sen (Deceased) Through His Lr. Sudheram Sen S/o Late Roopram Sen, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Birkoni, Ps And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. H-19/2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 2493/2015, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument 2 Act (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the complainant had filed a complainant case bearing No.2493/2015 against the applicant before the JMFC Mahasamund for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act stating that in the name of his son Hem Narayan Sen, land bearing khasra no. 683/6, 691/2, 731/2, 832, 1030, 1607/2 and 1803/1 was situated at village Birkoni. in his complaint he claimed that due to need of money for his medical treatment and for construction of house, his son executed a sale deed on 03.04.2014 of the lands of above mentioned khasra numbers in favour of accused for sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(five lakhs) and received a sum of Rs. 11,000/- (eleven thousand) as an advance consideration amount in leu of the aforesaid sale deed and the same should be registered by 31.12.2014 after receiving remaining sale amount sum of Rs. 4,89,000/- (four lakhs eighty-nine thousand). In his complaint, the complainant further claimed that on 31.03.2015, a post-dated cheque of 10.06.2015 bearing no. 043973 amount of Rs. 2,47,000/- was given to his son Hem Narayan by the applicant and on the said date the sale deed dated 03.04.2014 was registered and the lands of aforesaid khasra number was registered in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Stone proprietor Manish and M/s Jyoti Stone Industries proprietor Jyoti and some portion was registered in the name of Manish Maheshwari. It was also claimed by the complainant that the said cheques were deposited in the 3 bank for encashment and the were received an information that cheques dishonoured by the bank due to insufÏcient funds in the account and thereafter on 07.09.2015 a legal demand notice was served to the applicant which was received on 08.09.2015. It was stated that the applicant did not reply to the legal demand notice and therefore they filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The applicant was tried for the aforesaid offence before JMFC, Mahasamund, in complaint case no. 2493/2015 and the trial court held him guilty vide order dated 22.02.2023 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and punished him till rising of the court and as per under Section 357(3) CrPC ordered to pay sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- within a month and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by JMFC Mahasamund in complaint case no. 2493/2015, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court Mahasamund under Section 374 of CrPC. On 08.01.2025, the impugned order was passed in the appeal preferred by the applicant and punishment has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, however the compensation amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- has been modified to Rs. 3,00,000/- only. Hence, this revision. 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. 3,00,000/- upon the applicant, and out of which the applicant 4. 5. 6. 4 has deposited a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- to the respondent. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of 3 months. 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 15 days. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant has deposited Rs. 1,47,000/- to the respondent/non-applicant out of fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he is ready to pay the remaining amount, furthermore, the complaint on the incident was lodged in the year 2015 and thus, more than 10 years have been elapsed, 5 therefore, the applicant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of three months from today failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned Trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 8. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar