Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 699 of 2023 Ghanshyam Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Vishwakarma Aged About 49 Years R/o Beside Karishma Apartment, V.V. Vihar Colony, Mowa, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. Other Address - Vishwakarma Electronic Works, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattigarh. 492001, ... Applicant(s) versus Arjun Verma S/o Fekuram Verma, Aged About 48 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Sales And Services, Lodhi Chowk, Singh Complex, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. -492001, ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2020 and 143/2020 by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby, the learned trial Court sentenced the applicant with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 01 year simple RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there is mutual acquaintance between the complainant and the accused. In September 2014, when the accused required Rs. 2,46,000/- for his domestic work, the complainant loaned him the said amount in cash, with a promise to payback within one month. When the complainant demanded the amount back after a month, the accused handed him over a cheque bearing No.883009 to the tune of Rs.2,46,000/- dated 20.10.2014 of State Bank of India, Branch Panda Tarai, Raipur. When the cheque was deposited by the complainant with his bank State Bank of India, branch Mowa, on 19.11.2014, it got dishonored due insufÏcient funds. Information of the said dishonor of cheque was personally given by the complainant to the accused, then accused requested to present the cheque after 15-20 days and also assured that he will keep sufÏcient funds in his bank account. After that the complainant presented it before the State Bank of India, Branch Mova, Raipur on 17.12.2014, but it got dishonored because of stop instruction in the bank account of the accused and it was returned by the bank to the complainant along with the return memo on 02.01.2015. Upon this, the complainant sent legal notice of dishonor to the accused on his address, through his advocate on 27.01.2015 by registered post, but he did not make the payment of the said amount to the complainant. 3. Thereafte, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and vide its order dated 05.02.2020, convicted the accused for the said offence, by imposing a sentence of four months of simple imprisonment and a compensation 3 of Rs. 2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty five thousand). Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the Applicant preferred an appeal u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 134/2020 instituted on 03.03.2023. The complainant also preferred an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of the trial Court, numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 143/2020 instituted on 09.03.2023. 4. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court of the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), clubbed the above mentioned two appeals and passed the common order-dated 04.01.2023, whereby sentencing the applicant with Fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs), and in case of default of payment, with simple imprisonment for 1 year. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is bad on fact as well as on law as it is passed without taking into account the facts and circumstances of the entire case. The Learned trial Court did not impose any punishment of imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine, however, the Learned Appellate Court has imposed a punishment of 1 year of simple imprisonment in case the applicant defaults in payment of Fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- which is more than the actual sentence awarded by trial Court. Further, the quantum of fine imposed by Learned trial Court was to the tune of Rs. 2,55,000/- however, the Learned Appellate Court has increased the same to Rs. 3,00,000/-, which is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record, concluded that the applicant appeared before the Sessions Court just to get the change in the sentence of imprisonment given by the trial Court and punishing the accused with fine only. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment given by the trial Court for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was changed and the accused was punished with a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and in default of payment of fine amount, 01 year simple imprisonment. I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by imposing a fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in default of payment of fine amount 01 year simple imprisonment. Now considering the question of sentence, on a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as he is willing to pay the fine amount of not, he submits that he is ready to pay the fine amount imposed by the learned appellate Court and prays for some time to pay the same. 8. 9. 10. As such, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed upon him by the learned appellate Court, within a period of three months from today, failing 5 which, the applicant shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned appellate Court. 11.
Decision
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 Rahul Dewangan