Chattisgarh High Court
Tarachand Sahu vs Tilak Ram Sahu on 7 August, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 888 of 2025
1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o Yashvant Ram Sahu, Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Dahi, Ps Arjuni District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1 - Tilak Ram Sahu S/o Ram Dayal Sahu, Aged About 43
Years R/o Village Limtara, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
07/08/2025 Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate for the Applicant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
PF as per rules.
Also heard on I.A. No.03/2025, application for
suspension of sentence and I.A. No. 04/2025,
application for exemption from filing a type copy.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
he does not wants to press the applications i.e. I.A.
No. 03/2025 and 04/2025.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2025 and I.A. No.
04/2025 are dismissed as not pressed.
Further, heard on I.A. No. 06/2025,
application for exemption from filing a type copy.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the order of JMFC, Dhamtari, is slightly faint but
readable; therefore, he may be exempted from filing
a typed copy of the said faint pages.
Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 06/2025 is
allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No. 05/2025, application for
suspension of sentence.
By judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (C.G.) in
Criminal Case No. 249/2020, the applicant has
been convicted for offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to
undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay a
compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
applicant preferred an appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal
No.80/2022, wherein by the impugned order dated
30.06.2025 passed by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge in the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.), the
appeal filed by the applicant has been partly
allowed and reduced the sentence from 6 months'
S.I. to 3 months' S.I., however, fine of Rs.
2,30,000/- has been affirmed with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
there is no material on record on the basis of which
the applicant's conviction can be sustained. Only a
short sentence of 3 months has been imposed upon
the applicant. The applicant is in jail since
30.06.2025, and he is ready to abide by all the
terms and conditions which may be imposed upon
him while suspending the jail sentence of the
applicant and the recovery of compensation. The
conclusion of this revision petition is likely to take
considerable time; therefore, the applicant may be
released on bail, and the substantive jail sentence
of the applicant may be suspended till final disposal
of this case. He also prayed that the recovery of
compensation may also be suspended till final
disposal of the case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, as also the fact that the applicant has been
punished with a short sentence of 3 months' simple
imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 2,30,000,
and the applicant is ready to abide by any terms
and conditions imposed by this Court, at this stage,
I am inclined to allow I.A. No.5/2025 subject to
deposit 50% of the cheque amount by the applicant
within a period of 60 days from today.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 05/2025 is allowed. The
recovery of the remaining compensation amount
shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the
instant revision. The substantive jail sentence of the
applicant shall remain suspended till final disposal
of the instant revision petition and he shall be
released on bail on his executing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7th
October, 2025. He shall thereafter appear before
the concerned trial Court on a date to be given by
the Registry of this Court and thereafter, continue
to appear before the trial Court on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said
Court till disposal of this case.
After due verification, the complainant would
be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by
the applicant with a condition to return the said
amount whenever the Court directs.
Call for records of the trial Court.
List this case for final hearing in its
chronological order.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
