Madhya Pradesh High Court
Visvanath Singh Pawar vs Rambharosi Sharma on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15483
1 CRR-324-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 324 of 2018
VISVANATH SINGH PAWAR
Versus
RAMBHAROSI SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section
397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
15/01/2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in
Criminal Appeal No.64/2017, whereby the judgment dated 1/3/2017 passed
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in Criminal Case No.2607/2008
has been affirmed, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'N.I. Act') and sentenced
to undergo 01 year Rigorous Imprisonment with compensation amount of
Rs.1,20,000/-, with usual default stipulation.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent/complainant filed
a criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the
petitioner/accused before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena alleging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15483
2 CRR-324-2018
that he has advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner for
construction of house and other domestic expenses. Petitioner had issued a
cheque bearing No.073601 dated 10.10.2008 of District Cooperative Central
Limited Bank, Branch Morena amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of
respondent/complainant towards repayment of aforesaid loan amount. When
respondent placed that cheque for encashment in his Bank, it got
dishonoured on 13.10.2008 with the remark of "insufficient fund".
Thereafter, respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner for payment of the
cheque amount. When he did not back the said amount within stipulated
period, then complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. The Trial Court has framed the charge under Section 138 of N.I.
Act. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
4. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record,
convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced one year RI
with compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, with default stipulation. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred a criminal appeal but same
was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.1.2018 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
petitioner preferred this criminal revision before this Court.
5. The applicant has preferred the present revision on several grounds,
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that he is facing trial since 2008. He has already deposited compensation
amount of Rs.1,20,000/- before the trial Court, entry of which was recorded
in Book No.14331 receipt No.96. He submits that he does not want to press
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15483
3 CRR-324-2018
this criminal revision on merits and he is not assailing the conviction part of
the judgment but he confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of
sentence part. His only prayer is that imprisonment of the applicant be
reduced to the period already undergone as the applicant has suffered some
period of jail incarceration during the pendency of the revision. He is
regularly marking his presence before the Court. He is a poor person facing
trial since last 17 years and is not having any criminal background. He is also
a cancer patient. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and considered his argument
and perused the record and evidence available on record.
7. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not
been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also
justifies the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below.
8. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper.
The applicant has already suffered jail incarceration from 15.1.2018 to
1.2.2018. He is now turned about 51 years of age. He is not having any
criminal background. He is facing trial since 2008. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.
9. In view of above, it is directed that jail sentence of applicant
Vishwanath Singh Pawar is reduced from 01 year to the period already
undergone by him. The sentence of applicant is modified to the aforesaid
extent. The amount of compensation imposed by both the Courts below is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15483
4 CRR-324-2018
hereby affirmed.
10. Consequently, the present criminal revision is partly allowed to the
extent as indicated above. The applicant Vishwanath Singh Pawar is on bail.
His bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.
11. Let a copy of this order along with record of both the Courts
below be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
