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. 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
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
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
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
