Hetan Singh Gond vs Vikash Singh Rathore
2025 Latest Caselaw 3124 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Hetan Singh Gond vs Vikash Singh Rathore on 19 June, 2025

                                           1

                                      Digitally
                                      signed by A
                                      ANNAJEE
                            A         RAO
                            ANNAJEE   Date:
                            RAO       2025.06.20
                                      16:39:07
                                      +0530




                                                    2025:CGHC:25788
                                                                 NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                        CRMP No. 1880 of 2025


Hetan Singh Gond S/o Pakshu Gond Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-
Bachratola, Post- Cholna Police Station- Anuppur, Tehsil- Jaithari
District- Anuppur (M.P.) (Appellant)          ... Petitioner

                                  versus


Vikash Singh Rathore S/o Jeewan Singh Rathore Aged About 24 Years
R/o Village- Bacharwar Tehsil And Police Station Pendra, District
Gorella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) (Complainant)       ... Respondent

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent :

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

19/06/2025

1. This petition u/s 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is filed against the

impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal

No.21/2025 (Heetan Singh Gond Vs. Vikash Singh Rathore) whereby

the application filed by the petitioner for grant of extension of time to

deposit 20% of the fine amount in the form of CCD as directed by the

appellate Court has been rejected.

2. The JMFC, Pendra Road, took cognizance of the complaint case

filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. According to the

complainant, he is proprietor of Swaraj Tractor Agency where the

petitioner had purchased a Tractor for a price of Rs.6,75,000/-, out of

which, Rs.4,15,000/- was financed, Rs. 10,000/- was given by him in

cash and further in exchange of his old tractor, Rs.1,00,000/- was

adjusted in the sale price and for the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

the accused/petitioner gave a cheque in favour of the complainant,

which on presentation in the Bank was dishonored due to insufficient

funds. Thereafter, the complaint was filed and the learned JMFC after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the

judgment whereby the petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid

offence and sentenced to undergo SI for 4 months and to pay the

amount of Rs,1,60,000/- shown in the cheque, against which, the

petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Pendra Road.

3. In appeal, the learned appellate Court was pleased to suspend the

sentence u/s 430(1) of BNSS 2023 by order dated 24.03.2025 and

further stayed the sentence order subject to petitioner's depositing 20%

of the fine amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in the form of CCD within 30 days

and on producing the receipt. The petitioner could not deposit the

amount and filed application seeking extension of time to deposit the

20% of fine amount i.e., Rs.32,000/- on the ground that his grand- father

has died on 18.04.2025, hence he could not comply with the order of

the appellate Court but the appellate Court had rejected the application

for extension of time. Hence this petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

appellate Court has not properly looked into the fact that due to death of

grand father of the petitioner, the petitioner could not deposit the

amount and it has rejected the application for extension of additional

time , therefore, the impugned order of the appellate court dated

14.05.2025 is unjust and illegal and cannot be sustained.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case and

further as per sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the NI Act, the first

opportunity should be 60 days from the date of the order for depositing

such sum, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to grant

further time to the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the

impugned order dated 14.05.2025 and allow this petition. Accordingly,

the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to deposit

the 20% of the amount shown in the dishonoured cheque within a

period of 3 weeks from today.

6. In view of the above observation/direction, this petition stands

finally disposed off at the admission stage itself.

Sd/-

                                                (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Rao                                                    Judge