Sudan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr

2026:JHHC:19133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016
--------
Sudan Singh, S/o. Dinesh Singh, R/o. Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.-
Mohanpur, Dist.- Gaya (Bihar), at present Plot No. 281, Co-operative
Colony, S.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dilip Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Nakul Jha, R/o. Qr. No. L-291, P.O.-
Saharpura, P.S.- Sindri, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
…… Opp. Parties
--------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Maltiyar, Advocate
: Mr. Anukul Gaurav, Advocate
: Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate

th
C.A.V. On: 12 June, 2026 Pronounced On: 30/06/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment
dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
XIV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2015, whereby and
whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction
st
dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class,
Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1556 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial
Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year with direction
of payment of compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) the cheque amount. The
learned Appellate Court in the appeal pleased to set aside the sentence

2026:JHHC:19133


of S.I. for one year by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,50,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) the cheque amount and Rs.
3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) the 50%
of the cheque amount as extra compensation amount.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the opposite
party no. 2 Dilip Kumar Jha filed a complaint case under Section 138
of the N.I. Act against the present petitioner stating inter-alia that
complainant is a petty contractor. It is alleged that at the instance of
present petitioner, he used to perform cable work and other civil
works and invested Rs. 10 lakh in the said work. It is further alleged
that after completion of the said work, the accused had received the
entire amount from Airtel, but he has not paid even invested amount
of the complainant to him. It is alleged that after persistent request
made by the complainant, the accused issued three cheques of total
Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lakh fifty thousand) drawn at HDFC,
Bank. The Cheque No. 159752 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-, Cheque
No.169181 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- were submitted for their
encashment at Canara Bank, Sindri Branch by the complainant on
27.06.2008, but the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund in
the account of the accused. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the
accused but in spite of receiving the notice, the cheque amount was
not paid within stipulated time, therefore, the complaint case was
lodged.

4. After conducting inquiry in the complaint case, being C.P. Case
No. 1556 of 2008 instituted by the complainant, summons was issued
2 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)

2026:JHHC:19133


against the accused person for the offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act.
5. The petitioner appeared to the summons and contested the case
before the learned Trial Court.

6. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held the
petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year alongwith the
compensation amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- within one month from the
date of judgment.
7. The present petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.
43 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was
disposed of vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad, after hearing the parties on merits and
directed the petitioner to deposit the Cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-,
which was received by the complainant and as negotiation for
settlement was going on between the parties, also directed to deposit
50% compensation of cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- i.e., 3,25,000/-
as compensation apart from the cheque amount, which has already
been paid and as such, sentence was modified setting aside the S.I. for
one year and substituted by payment of compensation amount of Rs.
3,25,000/- apart from the cheque amount, which has been assailed in
this revision.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:-

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
complainant has not disputed the impugned judgment by filing an
3 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)

2026:JHHC:19133


appeal. Therefore, he has accepted the judgment of the learned Trial
Court which has become final against him. The learned Appellate
Court while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has committed illegality in
awarding additional 50% of the cheque amount towards the
compensation in this case, which was never sought for by the
complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the learned Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence in an
appeal as per the provision of Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., which
prohibits enhancement of sentence. It is further argued that the power
to enhance the sentence can only be exercised in an appeal or revision
filed by the State, victim or complainant after affording opportunity of
hearing to the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by
the learned Appellate Court enhancing the compensation amount is not
warranted under the law and fit to be set aside allowing this revision.
Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:-
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
assisted with the learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the
compensation is part and parcel in awarding the sentence in a case
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the instant case, the petitioner
sought for exemption from undergoing substantive imprisonment for
one year. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case which is
of the year 2008 and the appeal was disposed of in the year 2016, the
learned Appellate Court has rightly arrived at conclusion while giving
concession from undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment has
4 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)

2026:JHHC:19133


enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of 50% of the Cheque
amount, which was never granted to the complainant by the learned
Trial Court. As such, the compensation amount cannot be termed as
substantive sentence awarded to the accused rather as a necessary
corollary, the interest and compensation are granted in such type of
cases. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also placed
reliance upon the judgment in the case of R. Vijayan vs. Baby &
Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 260, wherein at para-18, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as under:-
“18………As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the act strongly lean
towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the
Courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of
conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the
cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple
interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of
loss) and direct payment of such amount of compensation. Direction to
pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of
dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would
mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a
reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by
different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as negotiable
instrument, but also the credibility of Courts of justice.”
In the above premises, it is submitted that there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate
Court calling for any interference in this revision. There is no
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and this revision is
devoid of merits fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, discussion and reasons:-
I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned
Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the
sides.
5 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)

2026:JHHC:19133


10. It appears that moot question is regarding the payment of
compensation. Admittedly, the complainant had received two cheques
of total Rs. 6,50,000/- from the present petitioner which is fortified by
the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court. The learned Trial Court has simply awarded
compensation of the cheque amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- and maximum
fine of Rs. 10,000/- which can be imposed by the learned Judicial
st
Magistrate 1 class apart from awarding S.I. for one year to the
petitioner as substantive sentence of imprisonment. It is also admitted
fact that the complainant has not filed any appeal for granting amount
of compensation passed by the learned Appellate Court while
reducing the sentence of imprisonment and setting aside the same has
directed the present petitioner to pay further amount of compensation
to the tune of 50% of the cheque amount. It is quite obvious in this
case that the learned Appellate Court has not enhanced the
punishment rather allowed compensation amount to the
complainant which must have been paid irrespective of any sentence
imposed upon the accused in terms of imprisonment and fine. The
compensation cannot be equated with the sentence, therefore, the plea
taken by the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court has no
jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation to the complainant
does not appear to be tenable under law. Compensation is part and
parcel in every judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act. It is meant for readdressing the loss of the complainant suffered
due to non-encashment of the cheque issued by the drawer. In the
instant case, the complainant has received the cheque amount after
6 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)

2026:JHHC:19133


eight years. Even if the said amount is deposited in the bank, if it may
carry 9% of simple interest for eight years would exceed to the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Appellate Court, i.e.,
3,25,000/- only.

11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I don’t find any legal
substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and also
do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of the
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court which
stands dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this revision application appears to be devoid of
merits and stands dismissed .
13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
14. The petitioner is directed to comply with the order passed
by the learned Appellate Court within two months from the date
of this Judgment by making payment of compensation amount of
Rs. 3,25,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 (complainant), failing
which, the complainant (opposite party no. 2) shall be entitled to
take recourse of law for realizing the aforesaid amount from the
petitioner.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned
Court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated:30/06/2026
Rahul/AFR
Uploaded on 01/07/2026
7 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2016)