2025:CGHC:48495 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 139 of 2019

1 - Pradeep Dewangan S/o Madanlal Dewangan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Santoshi Nagar Chowk Boriya Road Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus

1 - M/s Jai Vijay Textiles, Registered Partnership Firm, Whole Sale Cloth Merchant, through Prther Shivraj Begani S/o Megraj Begani, R/o 21 india Commercial Complex Police Station Pandri Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur Chhattisigarh 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

22-09-2025

1. The present criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant against the impugned judgment dated 26-10-2018, passed by the learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2018 whereby the criminal appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-06-2018 passed by learned Judicial

DMAA iOg D iHt I a LAl MK y HMsi A gEN nDed by Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.592 of 2011, convicting

D12a:t0e5: :22012 +5.01513.007

and sentencing the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “NI Act”), is affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant was an accused in Criminal Case No.592 of 2011, initiated by the Respondent No.1/complainant, for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent No.1/complainant is having clothes business, and the applicant/accused had purchased clothes from the complainant. In lieu of its sale consideration, the applicant/accused had issued a cheque of Rs.70,086/-, which was of Indira Priyadarshini Mahila Nagarik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, cheque No. 202649, dated 15- 06-2006, and given it to the complainant. When the complainant deposited the said cheque in his bank account for its clearance, the same was dishonoured byy the payee bank on 22-06-2006 on the ground of “Payment Stopped by the drawer”. The complainant served a legal demand notice to the applicant/accused on 04-07-2006, which was refused by the applicant/accused on 17-07-2006. Then the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act has been filed by the complainant before the learned trial Court.

3. The complaint case was registered on 19-09-2006, and summons was issued to the applicant/accused. The details of the offence were explained to the applicant/accused on 30-05-2007. The evidence of the complainant was recorded, statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused was also recorded, and the accused has also examined his witnesses in defence. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, on 25-06-2018, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced him till the rising of the Court and compensation of Rs.95,000/-, which is payable to the complainant. Failing which, the accused shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment of one month.

4. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-06-2018 was challenged by the accused before the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2018, which is dismissed by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated

26-10-2018. Hence this criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the complainant has failed to establish that there exists a legally recoverable debt, and the cheque was issued for the discharge of any liability against him. The legal demand notice was not served upon the accus