2026:CGHC:1235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2871 of 2023

1 - Gourishankar Agrawal S/o Late Teluram Agrawal, Aged About 59 Years Sector -02/17, Avanti Vihar, Ps Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Anil Khubchandani S/o Late Girdharilal Khubchandani, Aged About

42 Years R/o Gt Complex, Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Dm, Raipur ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate.

For State/Respondent No. 2: Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

08/01/2026

1. The petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.16 +0530 short “Cr.P.C.”), against the order dated 25-01-2023, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2021, whereby the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner was an accused in the complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “N.I. Act”), before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The allegation in the complaint case was that the complainant had supplied Cement on credit, between 23-07-2012 and 14-11-2012, amounting to Rs. 9,53,800/-, to the present petitioner/accused and another co-accused, Sonand Aggrawal (acquitted). In lieu of its payment, a cheque No. 275514, dated 26-08-2012, amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- was issued to him, which was dishonoured by the payee bank on 15-11-2012, on the ground of “stop payment”. Thereafter, after due process of legal demand notice, a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed before the learned trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court explained details of the offence, and after recording evidence of the parties, vide its judgment dated 05-03- 2021, convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him for S.I. for two years and compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/-, which is to be payable within 30 days, failing which he shall further undergo S.I. for six months. There were two accused persons in the case, and the co-accused Sonand Aggrawal has been acquitted by the learned trial Court.

4. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05-03-2021 is challenged by the petitioner/accused before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2021. In the Criminal Appeal, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer that he may be provided an opportunity to the appellant/accused:-

i. To cross examine P.W. 1 by putting some direct left out points.

ii. Some suggestion as regard to sale of cement to accused persons.

iii. Mischief or alteration made in documents filed in court.

iv. To examine both accused person as defence witnesses as regard to sale of cement to accused by complainant worth Rs. 9,53,800/- and giving the alleged cheque to complainant on 26-08-2012.

v. To seek a clarification on confusing answer of P.W. 1 and, vi. To produce and prove the sales Tax registration certificate granted to “cement associate” Raipur to prove accused Gourishankar Agrawal is not the owner of this business organization.

5. The said application of the petitioner/accused filed before the learned appellate Court was rejected on 25-01-2023, which is under challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the submission of additional evidence is necessary not only for just decision of the case but also to protect the right of fair and impartial trial of the accused. The complainant has suppressed various documents, and the accused could not cross-examine the witnesses