M. Javed Akhatar Vs Rana Biswash

Rana Biswash S/o P.C. Biswash Aged About 24 Years R/o Hemu Nagar Near Bajaj Colony Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Second Address Through Chief Station Master Traffic Assistant 01, Porter Bill No. 02269, P.O. Kanika, Himgiri, Tahsil Himgiri, District Sundargarh, Orrisa.,

¶10

	---Respondent/Accused
For Applicant	: Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Shri PradeepKumar Jogi, Advocate

¶11

CRR No. 556 of 2016

¶12

Rana Vishwas S/o Shri P.C. Vishwas Aged About 25 Years R/o. Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Torwa, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Applicant/Accused

¶14

Versus

¶15

M. Javed Akhatar S/o M.M. Akhatar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar, Annapurna Colony, P.S. Torwa, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

--- Respondent/Complainant

¶17

For Applicant : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate.

¶18

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

15/04/2026

¶21

1. Since both the above captioned revisions arise out of the common

¶22

2

¶23

impugned judgment dated 10.06.2016, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶24

The present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are directed against the common judgment dated 10.06.2016 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.17/2016 filed by the complainant – M. Javed Akhtar for enhancement of punishment and compensation amount and in Criminal Appeal No.16/2016 filed by the accused - Rana Vishwas for setting aside the sentence and fine amount. The learned appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the conviction of the accused – Rana Vishwas under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”) and sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, additional imprisonment for one month as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on 03.12.2015 in Criminal Case No. 13233/2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred herein as they were arrayed before the trial Courts.

¶25

Brief facts as projected by the parties are that on account of old acquaintance with the complainant – M. Javed Akhtar, the accused – Rana Vishwas has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.09.2012 as per his need and for this purpose an agreement was executed between them. While borrowing the said amount, the accused issued three cheques bearing No.076293, 076294 and 076297 dated 01.12.12, 01.12.12 & 01.01.13 amounting to Rs.80,000/-, Rs.80,000/& Rs.90,000/- which were deposited by the complainant in his Bank and subsequently, those three cheques were dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”. After that, the complainant sent a registered

¶26

3

¶27

legal notice and despite that, the accused failed to repay the loan amount, therefore, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur

¶28

Learned J.M.F.C. and the appellate Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused – Rana Vishwas as mentioned in para 2 of this Order. 5. Shri Pradeep Kumar Jogi, learned Counsel appearing for the accused/applicant – Rana Vishwas submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the quantum of sentence, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since 2012, i.e. about 14 years. The applicant remained in jail from 10.06.2016 to 24.06.2016 and thus incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 15 days. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

On the other hand, Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/applicant – M. Javed Akhtar opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and submits that equivalent to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed by the accused, the cheques amounting to Rs. 80,000/-, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.90,000/were issued by the accused. Since all the cheques were dishonoured and despite that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, imposed only a sum of Rs.1,000/- as fine amount and did not award any compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. As per the relevant provisions of law, compensation up to double the cheque amount can

¶30

4

¶31

be awarded.

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the statement of complainant (P.W.1) M. Javed Akhtar and exhibited material document, 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.

¶34

So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for a period of 15 days, he is facing the lis since 2012, i.e., about 14 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 accused/applicant – Rana Vishwas.

¶35

Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/applicant under Section 138 of N.I.Act is affirmed and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court needs to be enhanced as both the learned Courts did not pass any award with regard to compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., which in my considered opinion is not sustainable in law.

¶36

It is also quite vivid that under Section 138 of the N.I. Act Criminal Court is competent to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and direct payment of amount as compensation.

¶37

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the amount borrowed by the accused from the

¶38

5

¶39

complainant, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The accused – Rana Vishwas shall deposit the total fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Court of J.M.F.C. (trial Court) within a period of three months from today and in case of default, the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is further directed that after depositing the said amount before the concerned trial Court, the trial Court shall ensure that the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- is disbursed to the complainant – M. Javed Akhtar under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. as compensation. The amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be adjusted accordingly.

¶40

Since the applicant/accused – Rana Vishwas 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.

¶41

In the result, both the above captioned criminal revisions are allowed in part.

¶42

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶43

Anjani

M. Javed Akhatar v. Rana Biswash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Javed Akhatar v. Rana Biswash

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

Basant Suryawanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Jhakkad Korwa Died Smt. Bilti and Others

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Gurunam Singh @ Luckky Soni

Rana Vishwas Vs M. Javed Akhatar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vivek Kumar Ghritlahre

Moulana Jahiruddin Khan Vs Manmohan Shukla