1 2025:CGHC:17948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1232 of 2025 • Shamshad Khan S/o Mohd. Sikander Khan Aged About 38 Years At Ward No. 07, Lalpur Road, Bagbahara, P/s And Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus • Ramkishan Patel S/o Tulsiram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o At Village Khusrupali Junwani, Post Bokramuda, P/s. And Tehsil Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 21/04/2025 1. Heard. 2. The appellant 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 05.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.04.23 14:29:50 +0530 2 Bagbahara, District Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.05/2024, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). 3. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant was familiar with the respondent/accused and out of such relations, the complainant, who is an advocate, had given money to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs. The respondent/accused promised to return the amount within a period of one month and for repayment of the aforesaid amount, the respondent/accused issued a cheque dated 17.01.2024 (Ex-P/1), which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide Ex-P/2. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex-P/3) was sent. However, even after the said notice, payment was not made by the respondent. Hence, the complaint was filed. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Petition has been filed for grant of leave. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Though the signature on the cheque has not been disproved by the respondent/accused, but there is a legal presumption under Sections 139 & 118 of the NI Act. He would further submit that even in his cross- examination, the accused categorically admitted the fact that he was ready to return the amount and enter into a compromise, therefore, he prays to grant the leave to file an acquittal appeal. 3 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and other documents, annexed with the Petition carefully. 7. 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 evidence 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. 8. 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 4 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. 9. If we 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 evident that though the respondent/accused has examined himself as a defense witness, but the complainant has not given any suggestion about advancing an amount to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs to him. Further, during the trial, a story has been cooked up that the money has been given for investment purpose in installments i.e. Rs.5 lakhs in the first week of April 2022, Rs. 4 lakhs on 16.05.2022 and Rs. 3 lakhs on 04.06.2022 in cash for the purchase of char guthlu (a forest produce). The complainant categorically admits in his cross- examination that for advancing such a huge amount of money, no documents have been executed between them. He has also not examined the witnesses before whom he has given the aforesaid money. The trial Court has observed that for business in respect of any forest produce, a 5 license is necessary however, no such license(s) of the complainant and the accused were furnished during the trial. The complainant has also failed to specify on which date, time and place, he has given the money. Therefore, considering these infirmities, the transaction itself was found dubious and a finding of acquittal has been recorded. 10.For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for grant of leave, as the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. 11.Resultantly, the Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka