1 2025:CGHC:16962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1149 of 2025 1 - Kashmeer Singh S/o Pritpal Singh Aged About 66 Years Occupation Transporter, R/o Sai Dham Colony, Qu. No. C-04 Near Urdana, Tah And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Died) Through His Legal Representative Servjeet Singh S/o Late Kashmeer Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Presently R/o Shastri Nagar, Bhilai Nagar District Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s)/Complainant. versus 1 - Eid Mohammad S/o Abdul Ajeej Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Proprietor Sai Road Lines, R/o Nandni Town Ship (Wrongly Mention Nandini), 3 Batti Chowk, Ward No. 13 Tah Dhamdha District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s)/Accused. For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 11/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.1/2025 is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. The petitioner has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.04.15 11:26:18 +0530 2 Complaint Case No.108/2016, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act, 1881”). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent/accused that both complainant and the respondent/accused were doing business as transporters and due to business relationship, they were familiar with each other and in business transactions, the respondent/accused had issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 23.05.2016 (Ex-P/2). However, when the complainant presented the same for collection, it got dishonoured due to insufÏcient funds vide Ex- P/1. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex-P/3) was sent on 29.06.2016. However, even after the said notice, the payment was not made by the respondent, the complaint was filed. 5. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Petition has been filed for grant of leave. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective as the signature on the cheque has not been disputed by the respondent/accused, so legal presumption may be drawn. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and other documents, annexed with the Petition carefully. 8. 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, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a 3 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 evidence brought on record contrary to law. 9. 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 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 4 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. 10.If I examine the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above- mentioned cases, it is explicit that the son of the complainant categorically admitted that the respondent/accused has lodged an FIR against his father- Late Kashmir Singh, for not giving the vehicle CG-07 CA 8107 and for the security, the respondent has issued the cheque (Ex-P/2) to the complainant. When the vehicle was not delivered, a police complaint was also lodged by the respondent and furthermore, three cheques have been recovered in the said case. Therefore, considering the aforesaid evidence, the transaction itself creates doubt for the valid consideration. So there is no legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is a possible view. 12.In light of the aforesaid principles and considering the facts of the case, this Court does not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting any interference. 13.In the result, the Leave Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash