PUSPANJALI MAHARANA vs SIBA SANKAR CHOUDHURY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.746 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010734772026

(In the matter of application under Section 401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure read with Section 442 of BNSS).

Puspanjali Maharana … Petitioner
-versus-
Siba Sankar Choudhury … Opposite Party


For Petitioner : Mr. D. Sahoo, Advocate
along with Mr. A.P. Bose,
Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. R.K. Upadhyay,
Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.11.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the
impugned confirming judgments of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Appellate Court against the revision-
Petitioner for commission of offence U/S. 138 of NI Act.
2. By the impugned judgment in ICC Case No. 276 of
2023 (Trial No. 537 of 2023) which was confirmed in the
nd
appeal by learned 2 Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in
Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2025, the revision-Petitioner has
been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a
CRLREV No.746 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

period of nine months and to pay a sum of Rs. 9,76,344/- to
the complainant as compensation U/S. 357(3) of CrPC r/w
Section 117 of NI Act, in default of payment of
compensation, the revision-Petitioner has been directed to
undergo further SI for a period of three months with
stipulation of default sentence not to run concurrently with
substantive sentence.
3. Heard, Mr. Dushmanta Sahoo, learned counsel
appearing along with Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel
for the revision-petitioner and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the complainant-OP in the matter and
perused the record.
4. The facts being largely undisputed are not
reiterated to avoid prolixity, but it is clarified that the
husband of the convict-revision petitioner has sworn an
affidavit by stating therein that the convict does not want to
challenge her conviction, but prays for reduction of sentence
for the period already undergone in custody. It is further
stated in such affidavit that the Petitioner has no means to
pay the cheque amount of Rs. 5,28,172/-. On the other
hand, the custody certificate of the revision-Petitioner as
CRLREV No.746 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

produced by learned State counsel reveals that the convict
has already undergone custody period of 222 days as on
30.10.2026 and thereby, the convict-revision-Petitioner must
have undergone 229 days as on today. It is also not disputed
that the revision-Petitioner is a lady and she is currently
undergoing sentence in custody. Besides, Mr. Dushmanta
Sahoo, learned counsel who is assisting Mr. Amit Prasad
Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits on
instruction that the convict-revision Petitioner does not want
to challenge her conviction for the offence, but only limits
her prayer for reduction in sentence.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on
consideration of the materials placed on record together with
the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court
and the Appellate Court and taking into account the fact that
the convict does not want to challenge her conviction, this
Court does not find any error on the impugned judgments,
even on merits but since the convict has prayed for reduction
in sentence, this Court wants to examine such issues.
Admittedly, the convict-cum-revision Petitioner is a lady, but
she has advanced a cheque of Rs. 5,28,172/- towards
CRLREV No.746 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

payment of purchase of woods from the complainant on
credit which was done pursuant to an agreement entered
into by the convict and the complainant, however, when the
cheque was presented, the same got dishonored and for
that, the convict is undergoing sentence being found to have
committed the offence U/S. 138 of the NI Act. It is also not
in dispute that the convict is aged about 40 years and she
has already suffered a substantive sentence of more than
seven months, but she has been sentenced to undergo
substantive imprisonment for nine months. The intention of
legislation on sentencing is not to punish the offender as a
retribution, however, to act as a deterrence and its intention
is never to finish the criminal, rather to finish the crime. It is
also brought to the notice of the Court that the convict is
having two minor children and the husband in her house, but
keeping the convict in custody further would definitely
deprive the children from their legitimate love and affection.
Besides, even the substantive sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone, but the compensation as directed
by the learned convicting court is still recoverable from the
convict in accordance with law.
CRLREV No.746 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
consideration of the circumstance peculiar to the convict and
taking into account her custody for a duration of more than
seven months, this Court considers that interest of justice
would be best served, if the substantive sentence of the
convict is reduced to the period already undergone and she
being directed to undergo only default sentence of 30 days,
if the compensation is not paid. Accordingly, the substantive
sentence of the convict is reduced and modified to the period
already undergone
7. In the result, the CRLREV stands dismissed, but
the sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Consequently, the impugned judgments are hereby
confirmed and the convict has only to undergo the default
sentence, if the compensation amount is not paid.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed th
Dated the 6 day of November, 2026/Priyajit

Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Nov-2026 17:32:58
Signature Not Verified
CRLREV No.746 of 2026 Page 5 of 5