Chattisgarh High Court
Anwar Khan vs Dilharan Yadav on 20 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:8872
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 828 of 2024
Anwar Khan S/o Ajhar Khan, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Aamagohan, Police Station
and Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.)
... Applicant
Versus
Dilharan Yadav S/o Shri Surit Ram Yadav, aged about 37 years, R/o Village- Nagoi, Police
Station Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
20/02/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application filed by the respondent/claimant for permission to withdraw the fine amount deposited by the applicant/accused.
2
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would submit that the applicant has deposited total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the learned trial Court and out of which, the complainant/respondent has already received a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-. He further contended that by the order of learned trial Court, the fine amount was to be paid to respondent/complainant as compensation, but respondent/complainant unable to receive the amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited by the applicant for want of order of disbursement by the learned trial Court. As such, he filed the application (I.A.No.02/2025) for withdrawal of remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited by the applicant.
3. On the other hand, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant stating that the same shall be subject to final outcome of the revision.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 02/2025), the same (I.A. No. 02/2025), stands allowed and the respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the fine amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited by the applicant, after due verification by the learned trial Court.
5. While deciding the application (I.A.No.02/2025), this Court has gone through the impugned judgment and deem it proper to decide the revision rather than pending it. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
6. Vide judgment dated 23.02.2021, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months 3 and to pay fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 01 month and a furthermore compensation of Rs. 2,90,000/- to be paid under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C, 1973. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 23.02.2021, applicant filed the appeal before the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the learned Appellate Court upholding the judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned trial Court, rejected the said appeal vide judgment dated 09.07.2024.
7. It transpires from the record that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court while convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant arrived at finding that that the cheque in question was given by the accused/appellant in discharge of his liability and the same has been duly proved by the claimant by leading cogent evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned so far as it concerned to conviction part of the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
8. The question which arises for consideration by this Court whether the sentence awarded and the fine imposed upon the accused/appellant is just and proper sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. It transpires from the record that the applicant has been awarded sentence to undergo 06 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 01 month and a furthermore compensation of 4 Rs. 2,90,000/- was to be paid under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 to the non-applicant/complainant.
10. A bare perusal of the record goes to show that on 31.03.2018 and 01.05.2018, the accused/appellant purchased 500 and 100 bags of cements respectively from the shop of respondent/claimant on credit and gave a cheque of Rs.1,52,280/- duly signed by him, which upon depositing by the respondent/claimant, got dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund. The cheque in question was given by the accused/appellant in discharge of his liability which has been proved as held by the learned trial Court. As such, the original cheque amount is of Rs. 1,52,280/-, however, record further show that the accused/applicant has already deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- before the learned trial Court as a fine amount, out of which, the respondent/claimant has already received Rs.1,70,000/-. As such, it is established that the respondent/claimant has received more amount than the amount of cheque in question. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it proper to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant to the period already undergone by him and ordered accordingly.
11. As regards the fine amount, it also transpires that the respondent/claimant has received Rs.1,70,000/- and this Court in an application (I.A.No.02/2025), has already permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw fine amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the appellant/accused, as such the respondent/claimant would receive Rs.2,00,000/- against the cheque in question of Rs.1,52,280/-, which in 5 the opinion of this Court and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper compensation, and ordered accordingly.
12. In the result, the criminal revision is disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Uttej