1 2025:CGHC:20210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1358 of 2025 1 - Chhagan Lal Ganjeer S/o Balaram Ganjeer Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Parsuli Post Khertha Bazar Thana Devri District - Balod (C.G.) (Complainant). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kaushilaya Bai W/o Jeevan Lal Ravte President Shanti Didi Swa Sahayata Samuh Village Rivagahan R/o Village Rivagahan (Bharkatola ) Post Bhandera Thana Suregaon District - Balod (C.G.). 2 - Chhanni Bai W/o Tikam Singh Pisda Secretory Shanti Didi Swa Sahayata Samuh Village Rivagahan R/o Village Rivagahan (Bharkatola) Post Bhandera Thana Suregaon District - Balod (C.G.) (Accused). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 02/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.05.05 10:40:11 +0530 2 First Class, Dondilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) in Complaint Case No.385/2021 whereby, respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “the Act, 1881”). 3. As per the averments made in the complaint, the respondents/accused are the President and the Secretary respectively of Shanti Didi Self Help Group situated at village- Rivagahan, district Balod. It has been further stated that the petitioner/complainant, for the last 2-3 years, was supplying ‘ready to eat’ to the said self help group, for which, payment was made by means of cheque. The said self help group issued a cheque (Ex.P/3) of Rs.3,90,000/- dated 01.05.2020 for payment of balance amount, however, when the same was presented for encashment it was ‘stopped for payment by drawer’ which was communicated vide Ex.P/2. Thereafter, legal notice(s) vide Ex.P-5 and Ex.P/7 was sent to the respondents, however despite receiving the said notice, payment of the cheque amount was not made. Therefore, a complaint case was filed. 4. Complainant has examined himself and exhibited 10 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/10). 5. Respondent/accused- Kaushilaya Bai has examined herself has DW-3 and Respondent/accused- Channi Bai has examined herself as defense witness and they have examined Supervisor of Women and Child Development Department namely Sushila Bai as DW-1 & Yogeshwar Sahare, Branch Manager of SBI as DW-2. 6. The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondents/accused . Hence this petition for grant of leave to file acquittal appeal has been filed. 3 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. However, when a query was put to counsel for the petitioner, he fairly admits that the cheque was issued in the capacity of President and Secretary of Shanti Didi Self Help Group and not in personal capacity. Further, the said self help group has also not been arrayed as respondent/accused. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. 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 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. 10.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 4 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 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. 11.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 undisputed that the cheque (Ex.P/3) was issued on 01.05.2020 by the respondents being the ofÏce bearers i.e. President and Secretary of Shanti Didi Self Help Group, village- Rivagahan, but in the complaint, the said self help group has not been arrayed as accused party. It is also not in dispute that at the time of presentation of Cheque (Ex.P/3), Respondent No.2 was removed from the OfÏce as there were certain allegation that she misused the cheque. Further, the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence or ledger, which would demonstrate that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.3,90,000/- against 5 the Society. Although, Respondent No.2, in her statement, stated that an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- was due against the petitioner with regard to the goods supplied to the self help group but Respondent No.1 categorically deposed in her statement, at para 4, that on 18.05.2020 an information was sent to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dondilohara regarding removal of Respondent No.2 from the post of Secretary and in her place, a new Secretary namely Bhemabai has been appointed vide Ex.D/6. 12. In view of the above, when the complainant himself has not arrayed the self help group as accused party and the respondents/accused are only the ofÏce bearers, who have no personal liability in respect of clearance of the cheque, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. 13. For the foregoing, no case is made out for grant of leave to file acquittal appeal, and resultantly the Cr.M.P. is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash