Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1157 of 2022 Gajanand Rajak S/o Late Chandulal Rajak Aged About 45 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk Nayapara Chowk, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) Krishnanandan Yadav S/o Shri Kameshwar Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Amatalab Road Gaurav Path Munna Kirana Store Street, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aditi Singhvi holding the brief of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:49:00 +0530 11/07/2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.20/2022, arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2022 passed in complaint case No.191/2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First 2 Class, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari, whereby the appellate Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act awarded to the applicant, but modified the sentence increasing the fine amount to Rs. 3,00,000, which is payable to the complainant within 45 days as per Section 357(1)(b) of CrPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a dispute between the complainant and the applicant, who were acquainted with each other. In June 2018, the complainant lent Rs. 2,75,000 to the applicant, who promised to repay the amount within two months. To discharge this liability, the applicant issued a cheque (No. 192168, dated August 29, 2018) drawn on Vijaya Bank, Dhamtari Branch. However, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter, learned trial Court found the applicant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment. Additionally, the Court directed the applicant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,75,000 to the complainant within 15 days, in default of payment, the applicant would undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, While upholding the conviction, the appellate Court modified the sentence by increasing the fine amount to Rs. 3,00,000, to be 3 paid to the complainant within 45 days. In case of non-payment, the applicant would face three months of simple imprisonment. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and conviction is erroneous and contrary to law and the same is liable to be set-aside. She further submits that the learned appellate Court has awarded excessive fine amount to the applicant, furthermore, the applicant never received any notices as required under Negotiable Instruments Act. She also submits that the findings given by both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is violative of the principles of Negotiable Instruments Act. She later submits that the applicant has already deposited Rs.60,000/-. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the appellate Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo SI for six months by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the learned appellate Court has upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act awarded to the applicant, but modified the sentence 4 increasing the fine amount to Rs. 3,00,000, which is payable to the complainant within 45 days as per Section 357(1)(b) of CrPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months observing that the respondent failed to specify the date of lending the amount, the purpose for which the applicant needed the loan, and the date of presenting the cheque for encashment. Notably, the respondent admitted that his wife and daughter were present when the loan was given, but they were not examined as witnesses. Furthermore, although the respondent paid income tax in 2018, he did not produce the income tax return in the case. The respondent also admitted that the applicant gave him a cheque on the same day the loan was given. In contrast, the applicant alleged that the cheque was given as security and claimed that the respondent only lent Rs. 71,000, which was repaid. However, the respondent's statement regarding the loan and cheque was inconsistent, and he failed to provide details about the loan transaction. Based on above facts, the appellate Court concluded that under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is presumed that the cheque was drawn for consideration, and under Section 139 of the Act, it is presumed that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The applicant failed to rebut these presumptions with cogent evidence. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the finding recorded by the appellate Court, I am of the view that the learned appellate 5 Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in modifying the sentence by increasing the fine amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in default of payment of fine amount simple imprisonment for 3 months. 8. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant has already deposited Rs.60,000/- and is willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent within a reasonable period. 9. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent/complainant, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present revision with the direction that the applicant shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand only) before the trial court in favour of the respondent/complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which he shall serve out the sentence as has been awarded by the learned appellate Court i.e. 3 months of simple imprisonment. 10. On deposit of the said amount Rs.2,40,000/- by the applicant, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant without delay. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision stands
Decision
disposed of. 6 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 Abhishek