The court affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the necessity of compensation and the legal obligation of cheque issuance.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2024, passed by Shri Diwakar Pandey, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2024, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2024, passed by Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, J.M.F.C., Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 4794 of 2019, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of 15,00,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

I.A. No. 12035 of 2024

2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid approximately a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the O.P. No. 2, however, the defence of the petitioner has not been considered by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that the petitioner is still ready to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the name of O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2024 and he may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that Notice may be issued upon O.P. No.2. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court by convicting the petitioner, which was rightly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

6. It appears that the petitioner had filed Bank Statement in Thirty two sheets, marked as Ext.D- 1/Ext.D-2. This appears to be a case of alleged friendly loan. It further appears from the judgment of the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner has paid Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lacs) to the O.P.No.2.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the period of custody of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the O.P. No. 2, the petitioner, namely Vijendra Sharma is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XXIV, Ranchi or his Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 4794 of 2019. However, the petitioner shall deposit a Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) within two weeks on being released from jail in the name of the O.P. No.2 in the Office of the learned Registrar General and the learned Registrar General is directed to keep the same in safe custody and the same will not be handed over to the O.P. No.2 till further order of this Court.

8. Thus, this I.A. No. 12035 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 1194 of 2024

9. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Record.

10. Issue Notice upon the O.P. No.2 by Registered Post with A/D as well as Ordinary Process, as to why this Criminal Revision Application shall not be admitted and disposed of at the stage of admission itself for which requisites etc. must be filed within 10 days from today.

11. Put up this case on 27^th March, 2025.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the learned Registrar General.