Mathura Prasad Kashyap Vs Ritesh Kanekar

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.17 15:17:02 +0530

¶5

CRR No. 339 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on : 12/12/2025

¶6

Judgment Delivered on :17/12/2025

¶7

Mathura Prasad Kashyap S/o Chhedilal Kashyap, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sector-2, Ganga Nagar, Vill. And Post Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Rev. and Civil Bilaspur Tah. and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

Ajay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ratan Lal Gupta, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Shesh Calony, Vinoba Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

CRR No. 338 of 2016

¶13

Mathura Prasad Kashyap S/o Chhedilal Kashyap, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sector-2, Ganga Nagar, Vill. and Post Mangla P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Rev. and Civil Bilaspur Tah. and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Applicant/Accused

¶15

Versus

¶16

Ritesh Kanekar, S/o Shri A. Kanekar, aged about 39 Years, R/o Shesh Calony, Vinoba Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tehsil and Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

--- Respondent/Complainant

¶18

For Applicant	: Mr. Swayam Tehanguriya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent (in CRR	: None
No.339/2016)

¶19

2

¶20

For Respondent (in CRR : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate No.338/2019)

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶22

CAV Judgment

¶23

1. These criminal revisions under Section 397/401 of CrPC have been filed by the applicant/accused against the impugned order dated 05.04.2016, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.76/2015 (Mathura Prasad Kashyap vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta) and in Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 (Mathura Prasad Kashyap vs. Ritesh Kanekar), by which the appeal preferred by the applicant/accused has been dismissed affirming the order of trial Court dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 140/2011 (Ajay Kumar Gupta vs. Mathura Prasad Kashyap) and in Criminal Case No.141/2011 (Ritesh Kanekar vs. Mathura Prasad Kashyap) convicting the applicant/accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'NI Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with direction to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to the applicant, in default of payment of the compensation amount, additional R.I. for six months.

¶24

2. Case of the prosecution in CRR No.339/2016, in brief is that the accused/applicant – Mathura Prasad Kashyap borrowed Rs.5,00,000/in cash from the complainant/Respondent – Ajay Kumar Gupta for household expenses. On 30.12.2010, the accused issued a cheque bearing number 120782 in favour of the complainant, which on being presented before the Bank, got dishonoured due to insufficient balance.

¶25

3

¶26

Similarly, in CRR No.338/2016, accused/applicant – Mathura Prasad Kashyap borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- in cash from the complainant/Respondent – Ritesh Kanekar for household expenses and he executed an agreement on dated 24.11.2010. On 11.12.2010, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing number 120783 in favour of the complainant, which on being presented before the Bank, got dishonoured due to insufficient balance. As such, both the complainants filed complaint against the accused and an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act has been registered.

¶27

3. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2016 dismissed the same. Hence, these revisions.

¶28

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for total 16 days i.e. from 04.04.2016 to 20.04.2016, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years, and at present, he is aged about 67 years, and he has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that as per the information received from the applicant, Rs.1,00,000/- each has been paid by him before the concerned Trial Court as a part of compensation, as such, the applicant is not challenging the compensation amount as imposed by the Trial Court, however, it is

¶29

4

¶30

prayed that the default sentence as awarded by the Trial Court be reduced or the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Respondents supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

¶32

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶33

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, supported with the evidence of the complainants and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶34

8. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 16 days, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years and at present he is aged about 67 years, further, he has no criminal antecedent, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction and compensation amount of Rs.5 Lakhs – 5 Lakhs (in both the cases) imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to S.I. for 8-8 days in both the cases, which the applicant has already undergone. However, the default sentence i.e. R.I. for 6-6 months is reduced to S.I. for 1-1 month in both the cases.

¶35

5

¶36

9. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to S.I. for 8-8 days in both the cases which the applicant has already undergone.

¶37

10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶40

Prakash

Mathura Prasad Kashyap v. Ritesh Kanekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathura Prasad Kashyap v. Ritesh Kanekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Shukla Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal

Setkumar Behra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dhanraj Agarwal Vs Hulesh Satnami

Mathura Prasad Kashyap Vs Ajay Kumar Gupta

State of C.G. Vs K.R. Mishra

Gulab Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh