1 2025:CGHC:22685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1376 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Farhan S/o Sheikh Naimuddin Aged About 38 Years R/o Nandai Kunwa Chowk, Ward No. 39, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Harsh Kumar Verma S/o Rakesh Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Infront To The House Of Hazi Mansoor, Kasaipara, District Rajnandgaon, Establishment Tifin Center, Near Kali Mai Mandir, Infront Of Office Of Mohan Advocate, Bharkapara, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. The applicant/complainant has filed the present petition under Section 419 (4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No.1947/2024. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.06.10 11:03:24 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case are that as the applicant/complainant was acquainted with the respondent/accused, he had advanced a loan of Rs.70,000/- for meeting the domestic need of the respondent on 4.7.2022. Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/-+Rs.25,000/-) was transferred through PhonePe on 4.7.2022 & 5.7.2022 respectively, whereas Rs.20,000/- was given in cash. The respondent/accused had promised to return the amount within a period of 6 months and in lieu of the aforesaid loan, he had given cheque of Rs.70,000/- (vide Ex.-P/1). When the said cheque was presented for encashment (Vide Ex.-P/2), the same was dishonoured, which was intimated by the concerned Bank vide Ex.-P/3. Thereafter legal notice (Ex.-P/4) was sent. Despite receiving the said notice when the payment was not made, a complaint case was filed and after trial, the same was ended in acquittal. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, though there is legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which has not been rebutted by the respondent/accused. He further submits that there was no admission on the part of the complainant that he has filed 21 cases under the N.I. Act from 2017 to 2024 and the finding to that effect was not correctly recorded by the trial Court, which is perverse. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 5. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, 3 the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 6. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of 4 ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 7. On examination of the evidence in the present case in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, it appears that the complainant has admitted the fact that he was earlier possessing money lending licence and at the time of transaction, he has not renewed the money lending licence. 8. Furthermore, there is legal bar to carry on business without registration certificate under Section 11-F of the CG Money Lending Act and contravention is an offence. The said provision reads thus: “11-F. Bar to carry on business without registration certificate.- (1) No person shall carry on the business of money-lending in any district unless he holds a valid registration certificate in respect of that district. [(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or if he has previously been convicted of an offence under that sub-section, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.]” 9. In the case at hand, the trial Court on the basis of list filed by the defence as also on the principle of pre-ponderance of probability, taking into consideration the entire fact situation of the case, has drawn presumption against the complainant. 5 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, evidence available on record and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the trial Court was a possible one. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal appears to be just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve