The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision challenging an appellate court's reduction of sentence in a cheque bounce case. The court upheld the reduction as just and proper given the concurrent civil decree.
The criminal revision was dismissed, affirming the reduced sentence of one month SI and Rs. 15,000 compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2013
Basant Sahu, aged 55 years S/o Shri Ramlal Sahu, R/o Telipara, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, P.O/Tahsil/District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
Girdharilal, aged 49 years S/o Hoteldas, Shatriya, R/o Karbala Road, Juna Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, P.O./tahsil/district Bilaspur (C.G.)
-----Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board
07/12/2018
2
cheque was again dishonored. The Applicant served a notice to the Respondent through his counsel for demand of the amount, but the Respondent did not give response. Thereafter, the Applicant filed a complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, vide judgment dated 02/04/2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 932/2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him with one month SI and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Applicant under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C with default stipulation. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction of the Respondent vide impugned judgment dated 27/11/2012, however, the Applicant was sentenced to till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 15000/- only. Thus, this revision has been preferred.
3
month SI and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Applicant under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C with default stipulation. While deciding the appeal, it was observed by the learned Appellate Court that for the recovery of borrowed money, a separate civil suit has been preferred by the Applicant, which was decreed in his favour and the Applicant has obtained entire borrowed money during execution of said decree. It was also observed that the incident is of the year 2004 and the Applicant is facing the lis since 13 years. On these grounds, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence part.
Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge
Rahul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court acted below the scope of powers by reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court.
If a separate civil suit for recovery has been decided, are appropriate reasonings required before modifying the criminal sentence under Section 138 NI Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Basant Sahu
Girdharilal
Arvind Singh Chandel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
