Chattisgarh High Court
Baratu Ram Chouhan vs Central India Motors, Bilaspur on 25 January, 2024
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 662 of 2012
Baratu Ram Chouhan S/o Labhoram, aged about 35 years
R/o Village: Bagbuda, Saraipali, Tahsil: Gharghoda, District: Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
Central India Motors, Bilaspur through Pramod Naik Partner S/o M.L.
Naik, R/o Raipur Road, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District:
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Yash Raj Verma, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
25.01.2024
1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 04.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2012 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence
U/s 138 of NI Act, 1881 SI for one year
2. The respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Page 2 of 5 Cr.P.C. against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging therein that on 23.12.2004, the applicant has taken a loan from the respondent, and in order to pay the loan amount, the applicant issued a cheque bearing No. 14162 amounting to Rs. 1,27,445/-. It is further alleged that the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement mentioning therein 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 07.04.2007 was sent to the applicant but the applicant has avoided the same against which, the said complaint was filed.
3. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class registered the same as Criminal Case No. 456/2010. After registering the complaint, the learned trial Court framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The applicant denied the allegation of charge as framed and pleaded not guilty.
4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant under U/s 138 of NI Act and also imposed Rs.1,27,445/- as compensation u/s 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of compensation further SI for 3 months vide judgment dated 06.03.2012. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2012, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the trial Court and maintained the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved therewith, the present revision has been filed by the Page 3 of 5 applicant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 47 days i.e. from 04.10.2012 to 20.11.2012, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2011. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per order dated 20.11.2012 passed by this Court, the applicant was granted bail subject to deposition of Rs. 50,000/-, which he has already deposited before the Trial Court, which was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit scheme, till further orders. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel that jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the amount so deposited by the applicant before the concerned Trial Court may be ordered to be disbursed to the respondent along with interest, as compensation.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.
8. Admittedly, the applicant issued the above cheque for repayment of loan, but the said cheque was dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds. The said fact was proved by the respondent by bringing on record, both oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Court Page 4 of 5 after considering the evidence has held the applicant guilty as he failed to make repayment of loan to the respondent and the said cheque was dishonored. Having held as such, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph No. 1. The finding recorded by the Trial Court as to the conviction of the applicant is finding of fact based on evidence both oral and documentary and material available on record, which was further affirmed by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 04.10.2012.
9. Considering the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, which is sufficient and acceptable and the complainant has also duly proved the guilt of the present applicant, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant under the aforesaid section and sentenced the applicant accordingly.
10. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the applicant served jail sentence for a period of 47 days. The applicant is facing the lis since 2011 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
11. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant is hereby affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, since the applicant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- in pursuance of order dated 20.11.2012 passed by this Court and the same was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit scheme till further orders, therefore, it is directed that amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the applicant before the trial Court shall be disbursed to Page 5 of 5 the respondent/complainant with accrued interest as compensation and the default sentence regarding non-payment of compensation amount, i.e. SI for three months is hereby quashed.
12. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
13. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh