NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 952 of 2014 Arvind Kumar Sinha S/o B.P. Sinha aged about 52 years R/o Ward No. 18, Near Aata Chakki, Sarju Bagicha, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Civil and Revenue District Bilapsur C.G.

---- Applicant Versus

1. Madandas S/o Jankidas aged about 38 years R/o Marwadi Line, Khaparganj, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur C.G.

2. State of C.G. Through - Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur District Bilapsur C.G.

---- Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Dembra holding brief of Mr.

Bhaskar Payashi, Advocates For Non-Applicant No.1 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant No.2/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

16 /04/2024

1. Heard Mr. B.L. Dembra holding brief of Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel, appearing for Non-Applicant No.1 and Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for Non-Applicant No.2/State.

2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment dated 21.10.2014 passed by the 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.75/2014, whereby the learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge has set-aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and remanded back the matter to the JMFC, Bilaspur with a direction to fulfill the lacuna. While passing the judgment, whereby the learned JMFC has punished the applicant with one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 9,80,000/- upto double the amount of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 2 months additional R.I.

3. The undisputed facts necessary for disposal of this case are that complainant Madandas filed a Complaint Case against the applicant herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In complaint case, it was alleged that on 12.06.2012, applicant has borrowed Rs.4,90,000/- from him due to some urgent work and an agreement was executed between the parties on the same day stating that the amount would be repaid within one month and for security, two cheques bearing number 481421 dated 23.07.2012 and 481422 dated 24.07.2012 of his account in State Bank of India have been handed over to the complainant. The complainant presented both cheques to its banker on 31.07.2012 and same have been dishonored on 01.08.2012 due to insufficient funds in account and memo to this effect was received by the complainant on 06.08.2012. The Complainant sent legal notice on 08.08.2012 through his counsel calling upon the applicant to make payment, but the applicant deliberately did not receive the notice and got endorsement locked from postal department.

4. The applicant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that the he has not issued any cheque to the complainant and in fact, cheque was handed over to Sujit Singh @ Runtu towards security for the transaction in respect of agreement to sale dated 12.06.2012. The complainant has got executed an agreement to sale through Runtu and Pramod Jain and as the complainant failed to fulfill the performance of the contract, in order to avoid the liability false story has been cooked up and security cheques were misused by the complainant.

5. In agreement to sale dated 12.06.2012 it has been mentioned that Madandas is owner of the land admeasuring 1330 sq.ft., situated in Mouja Juna Bilaspur bearing Survey No.717 and a shop is constructed in ground floor and in first floor construction and plaster work is remaining. Name of Madandas is recorded in revenue records, agreed to sale the same to the applicant for Rs. 30 Lacks. It was further mentioned that Madandas received Rs. 2 Lacks on 30.08.2011, Rs. 2,10,000/- has been received by Sujit Singh @ Runtu (one of the partner of house) on 16.02.2012 and Rs. 1 Lack has been rec