Partly allowed¶9

Gangu Ram Dewangan v. Abhishek Kumar Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026CRR/328/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone (11 days) in an 18-year-old cheque-dishonour case (Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed; five Dena Bank cheques of Rs.50,000/- each dishonoured for insufficient funds); appellate fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence affirmed; revision under S.397/401 CrPC partly allowed; bail bonds continued six months per S.481 BNSS 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; 07/01/2026; CRR No. 328 of 2011.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment sentence reduced to the period already undergone (11 days); conviction under S.138 N.I. Act, fine sentence and default sentence affirmed; since the applicant is on bail, his bail bonds shall remain in force for six months in view of S.481 BNSS 2023. ¶9

Gangu Ram Dewangan Vs Abhishek Kumar Agrawal — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the jail sentence imposed on the applicant (4 months S.I. as modified by the appellate Court) should be further reduced to the period already undergone, the applicant having conceded the conviction and confined his challenge to the sentence part. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

It is proper and just to reduce the sentence of imprisonment because the applicant has undergone only 11 days' imprisonment, has been facing the lis since 2007 (more than 18 years) and has no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is affirmed: in the Court's considered opinion, both the trial Court and the appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence and material on record (statement of complainant P.W.1 Abhishek Agrawal and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16), rightly convicted the applicant.

¶7

Key takeaways

Operative order: the revision is partly allowed; the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone, while the conviction under S.138 N.I. Act, the fine sentence and the default sentence are affirmed.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), 07/01/2026, Radhakishan Agrawal, J. — CRR No. 328 of 2011: Revision under S.397/401 CrPC by Gangu Ram Dewangan against the appellate judgment dated 07.06.2011 (Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Cri. Appeal No.45/2010), which had maintained his conviction under S.138 NI Act (trial: J.M.F.C. Bhatapara, Criminal Case No. 222/2007, judgment 13.10.2010 — RI 1 year plus fine Rs.5,000/-) but reduced imprisonment to 4 months SI, enhanced fine to Rs.10,000/- and altered the default sentence to SI 1 month. The applicant conceded conviction and sought reduction of the jail sentence, having undergone 11 days, facing the lis since 2007 (over 18 years) with no criminal antecedents. The Court affirmed the conviction (basis: statement of P.W.1 Abhishek Agrawal and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16) and reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone, affirming the fine and default sentences; bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for six months per S.481 BNSS 2023. Revision partly allowed.

2026:CGHC:1009

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 328 of 2011

¶6

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.09 10:19:41 +0530

¶7

Gangu Ram Dewangan S/o Ramji Dewangan, R/o Village Manohara, P.S. Bahatapara, Distt.-Raipur C.G. ... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

Abhishek Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara, Distt.-Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate

¶10

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

07/01/2026

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Raipur in Cri. Appeal No.45/2010 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I.Act) has been maintained but sentence has been reduced to 4 months S.I. from RI for one year while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.10,000/from Rs.5,000/- as recorded by the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhatapara in Criminal Case No. 222/2007 vide judgment dated 13.10.2010. The appellate Court also altered the default sentence to SI for one month from RI for two months.

¶15

Brief facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant and the accused/applicant are both acquainted each other and on 30.01.2007 the

¶16

¶17

applicant/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent/complainant and issued five Dena Bank cheques of Rs.50,000/- each against money advance. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent presented the cheques in State Bank of India, Bhatapara, however, the same was dishonoured stating that there is ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant was constrained to issue notice to the applicant/accused on 30.08.2007, which was obtained by the applicant, despite that the applicant did not make repayment. Aggrieved by the said action of the applicant/accused, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhatapara.

¶18

The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the complaint and vide its judgment dated 13.10.2010 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to RI for one year with fine sentence of Rs.5,000/- plus default sentence. The appellate Court, vide its judgment, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence part, while enhancing fine amount, as mentioned in para 1 of this order.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail since 07.06.2011 to 17.06.2011 i.e. for 11 days and he is a villager and is facing the lis since 2007, i.e. for more than 18 years and that he has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the fine amount of Rs.5,000/imposed by the trial Court has been deposited before the concerned Court on 13.10.2010 and enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,000/- has also been deposited on 08.06.2011 before the appellate Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revision and submits that the appellate Court has already reduced the jail sentence imposed upon the applicant/accused, therefore, the sentence as passed by the appellate Court is adequate and there is no ground for further reducing the sentence part.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

Considering the statement of complainant (P.W.1) Abhishek Agrawal and exhibited material documents, i.e., acknowledgment, cheques, notices and postal acknowledgments vide Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 available on record, I am of the considered opinion that both the learned trial Court and appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, have rightly convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same.

¶23

So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for a period of 11 days, he is facing the lis since 2007, i.e., for more than 18 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that it would be proper and just to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant.

¶24

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of N.I.Act is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, however, fine sentence and default sentence imposed under the said offence is affirmed.

¶25

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶28

Anjani

Gangu Ram Dewangan v. Abhishek Kumar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangu Ram Dewangan v. Abhishek Kumar Agrawal

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

C.g. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhananjay Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhotelal and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of C.G. Vs Tarun Chandra and Ors.

Rajaram (Died Through Lrs) Vs Sahartin Bai and others

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Santosh Goyal