HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.639 of 2006 K {Criminal revision under Section 397/401 ofthe Code of Criminai Procedure § 1973} c Present: Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, counsei for the appiicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy 'Govt. Advocate for the State/non- appiicant No.2. Singie Be‘nch: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (1—3—201 1) 1. By this criminai revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the ’ CrPC, the appiicant has chaiienged Iegaiity & propriety of the judgment dated 17th Juiy, 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No.296/2005, modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2—8—2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.355/2003, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted non-applicant No.1 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced h‘lm to undergo Rl for six months & pay fine of Rs.2,000/—, in default of =3 payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. While maintaining conviction of non—applicant No.1, the appellate Court has modified the sentence and sentenced non-applicant No.1 to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in , APPLICANT/z K.M. Xavier, S/o Late KM. Mathan, (Complainant) aged about 46 years, R/o B—Pocket, 20/D‘ Maroda Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANTS/: 1. Dhaniram Sahu, S/o late Manrakhan ~ (No‘1 Accused) Sahu, aged 45 years, R/o Block No.82, Quarter No.C, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil & District (No.2 State) 2. Durg(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the a: District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6? default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months and has also awarded compensation to the applicant herein. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties present, and perused the judgments and records of both the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while modifying the sentence imposed upon non-applicant No.1 herein, the appellate Court has committed illegality. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the revision. m 5. The only short question involved in the present case is whether by modifying the sentence imposed upon non-applicant No.1 herein, the appellate Court i.e. the Sessions Judge, Durg has committed illegality. u ‘2 . As per case of the complainant/applicant, non-applicant No.1 has issued cheque 3f Rs.50,000/— in discharge of debt/liability which was dishonoured, finally‘complaint was filed and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted & sentenced non-applicant No.1 as aforementioned. 7. Section 138 of the Act provides sentence of imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. The legislature has provided discretion and the Court is competent to impose sentence of imprisonment or‘sentence , t of fine or both. 8. Considering the nature of accusation and amount of cheque, the appellate Court has imposed only the sentence of fine. by imposing such sentence, the appellate Court has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. ‘ Sd/- l Soma l T. P. Sharma L l Judge