(1.) THESE two revisions are filed against the common judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal appeals No. 47/2012 and 55/2012 and therefore, they are decided by the present common order. The applicant Gurunarayan (hereinafter he will be referred to as 'Applicant/accused') applicant of criminal revision No. 1751/2012 has challenged the impugned order because conviction directed by the trial Court was not set aside by the appellate Court. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'The NI Act') vide judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur in criminal case No. 831/2007 and sentenced with 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. Out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ - was provided to the respondent/complainant, by way of a compensation. In criminal appeal No. 47/20012 vide judgment dated 31.8.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chhatarpur, maintained the conviction directed by the trial Court but, jail sentence was set aside and a fine of Rs. 2,40,000/ - was imposed upon the applicant/accused.
(2.) THE applicant/complainant Brijendra Billaiya of criminal revision No. 1842/2012 (hereinafter he will be referred to as 'Applicant/complainant') has challenged the impugned judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal appeal No. 55/2012, whereby the sentence of the applicant/accused was reduced and therefore, he prays that the sentence of the applicant/accused be enhanced.
(3.) THE applicant/accused abjured his guilt before the trial Court. He took multifarious defence in the case. His first defence was that the applicant/complainant had stolen the signed cheque from the cheque book of the applicant/accused and misused that cheque. Secondly, in the month of September, 2006, the applicant/accused left Chhatarpur and he was residing at Bhopal. Therefore, no notice of demand was received by him. In support of his contention, he got himself examined as a defence witness, whereas Hariom Mishra (D.W. 2) was also examined to show that the applicant/complainant hardly had any sufficient fund to give as a loan to the applicant/accused.