Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 303 of 2015 Sanjay Mayank S/o R.L. Gupta Aged About 44 Years M.R. (Medical Representative) R/o Street No.7 In Front of Kanak Niwas, modle Town Neharu Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Chhedilal Shahjeet S/o Sukhauram Shahjeet R/o M.No. 1017, Near Sevandes School, Krial Nagar, Kohka Bhilai, Tah. And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant : None. : None.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.01.2025 Order on Board 1. None appeared for the applicant to press this revision petition, hence this Court has requested to Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel, who is present in the Court, to assist the Court as this revision is pending since 2015. He had accepted the said request and, accordingly, this Court appoints him as amicus-curiae, who in turn has assisted the Court in disposal of the present revision on behalf of the applicant. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.21 16:14:44 +0530 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 2 23.02.2015 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G) in criminal appeal No. 244/2014, arising out of the judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg, (C.G.) in complaint case No. 1604/2008, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 months and pay compensation of Rs. 67,000/- to the non-applicant, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 01 month. 3. As per the prosecution's case, a complaint case No. 1604/2008 was filed by the non-applicant/complainant against the applicant/accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Durg. The case pertains to a cheque (No. 835634) for Rs. 50,000/- issued by the applicant/accused to the non-applicant/complainant. When the non-applicant/complainant presented the cheque for clearing at his ICICI Bank, Supela Bhilai, account number 018605001052, on April 11, 2008, it was dishonored due to insufÏcient funds in the applicant's/accused's account. Subsequently, the non-applicant/complainant sent a legal notice to the applicant/accused on April 30, 2008, via registered post. Thereafter, the non-applicant/complainant filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Durg (C.G). 4. After completion of trial the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3 Durg vide order dated 31.07.2014 convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 months and pay compensation of Rs. 67,000/- to the non- applicant, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 01 month. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant/accused challenged the order dated 31.07.2014, by filing an appeal before the 7th Additional Session Judge, Durg. The non-applicant/complainant also filed an appeal (No. 276/2014). Both appeals were heard jointly by the appellate Court, which passed its final order on 23.02.2015. In this order, the appellate Court reduced the applicant/accused's punishment from two months' simple imprisonment (SI) to imprisonment until the rising of the Court. Additionally, the Court increased the compensation amount to Rs. 80,150/- including interest of Rs. 30,150/- to be paid to the non-applicant/complainant within 20 days of the order. The applicant/accused's appeal was partly allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the judgment passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg are bad in law, therefore, they are not sustainable according to law. He also submits that since because of this reason, that the learned Additional Session Judge, Durg and JMFC, Durg, had not properly considered the evidence on record in this Case. 7. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4 while considering evidence on record reduced the punishment of SI for 02 months to punishment for till rising of the Court but an arbitrary order passed by the learned Session Judge, the amount should be deposited in 20 days. He also submits that the applicant/accused already deposited Rs. 16,750/- in the Court below before the filing appeal before the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgments of both the Courts and records. 9. From perusal of the order dated 09.02.2017, it transpires that the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs. 80,150/- before the learned trial Court, in compliance of the order passed in criminal appeal No. 244/2014 dated 23.02.2015 and the respondent herein and had filed an application and the respondent had filed an application being I.A. No. 01/16 seeking disbursement of the aforesaid amount. The coordinate Bench is directed that subject to the complaint/respondent furnishes sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below the amount deposited by the applicant shall be released to him. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the material available on record, it transpires that the appellate Court held that according to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a person found guilty of this offense shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years, or with a fine that may extend to twice the 5 amount of the cheque, or with both. In this case, the accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonored due to insufÏcient funds. As a result, the complainant suffered financial losses. Considering this, it would be justifiable to provide compensation to the complainant instead of imposing imprisonment on the accused. The accused is required to pay compensation of Rs. 80,150/- which includes the cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- and interest of Rs. 30,150/- calculated at 9% per annum from December 30, 2007, to July 31, 2014. The accused shall deposit the compensation amount within 20 days from the date of the order. The appellate Court has set aside the order of 02 months' simple imprisonment imposed on the accused and instead, has ordered the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 80,150 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the accused fails to pay the compensation amount, he shall be punishable with one month's rigorous imprisonment. The accused shall pay the entire compensation amount of Rs. 80,150/- to the complainant, Chhedilal, within one month from the date of the order. However, if this order is challenged, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, if any application is made by the non- applicant/ complainant for the disbursement of the amount deposited by the applicant/accused, the same shall be disbursed to 6 him, in accordance with law. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Abhishek