Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1082 of 2015 Smt. Kalyani Diwan W/o Sanatdhar Diwan Aged About 40 Years R/o Quarter No. 78, Near Radhakishan Mandir, Urla Dharsiva Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., versus ... Applicant 1. Dhanesh Finance And Leaging Through Proprietor M.D. Distributor, Director Anil Badariya S/o Sumit Badariya, Sidhesh Badariya S/o Nirmal Badariya, R/o Nirmal Badariya, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajanandgaon, Through Dinesh Gupta S/o R.P. Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Hira Moti Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.10 20:05:47 +0530 09.09.2025 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order of conviction passed by the 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 492/2013, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short 'NI Act') and sentenced him to undergo six months of simple imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, further, in default of payment of fine amount, one month of simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant is a financing firm which alleges that on 13.01.2006, the accused took a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant for the purchase of a three-wheeler and agreed to repay the amount in 24 monthly installments. In case of delay, the accused was liable to pay interest. The accused paid only Rs. 50,430/- and thereafter stopped making further payments. The complainant calculated the outstanding amount as Rs. 1,35,837/- after deducting Rs. 50,430/-, and issued a notice for recovery of Rs. 85,443/-. The vehicle was later sold for Rs. 2,90,000/-. According to the complainant, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.01.2009 for Rs. 56,443/-, bearing Cheque No. 83792, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Daipur Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque at Dena Bank, Rajnandgaon Branch, but it was dishonoured on 06.02.2009 due to insufficient funds. A registered notice was issued on 07.03.2009, which the accused refused to accept. Thereafter, the complainant firm filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the accused is that the complainant firm has misused the cheque, which had been given as security at the time of financing the vehicle. It is contended that the complainant recovered the entire amount 3 after the sale of the vehicle. The complainant has not filed any document to show the remaining amount due after the sale of the vehicle, and according to the accused, only Rs. 54,440/- remains to be paid. The applicant has abjured his guilt and submitted that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The applicant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already undergone 07 days of jail sentence, and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the 4 appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the conviction is affirmed. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2015 and thereafter more than 09 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 07 days of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from S.I. for six months under Section 138 of NI Act to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 07 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to 8,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Total enhanced fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him, within a period of 02 months from today before the trial Court concerned, and the same shall be paid to the Government SAA Balod, (C.G.), failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 8. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned within a period of 48 hours for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- Preeti (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice