1 2025:CGHC:19922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1481 of 2025 1 - Mrs. Anita Xess W/o Mr. George Xess, Aged About 50 Years, Address- Qua-No.- 4/A. Road No.- 05. Sector- Hospital, Bhilai Present Address- Qua. No.- 4/A., Road No.- 42, Sector-07 Police Station- Kotwali Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - E-Trading Academy Operated By Director's The Present Address Of The Office Is Qua. No.- 13/B. Road No.-24. Sector-07 Bhilai Nagar. 2 - Mr. Gaurav Dewangan S/o Sunil Kumar Dewangan (Absconding), Director Trading Academy, Present Address Qua. No.-13/B. Road No.-24, Sector-07 Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 - Mr. Gunjan Dewangan S/o Sunil Kumar Dewangan, Director- E Trading Academy. Present Address Qua. No.- 03/B, Road No.- 41. Sector-07 Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4 - Mrs. Payal Devangan W/o Gaurav Kumar Devangan, Director- E Trading Academy. Present Address Qua. No.- 13/B. Road No.-24. Sector- 07 Bhilai Nagar. All Police Station- Kotwali Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate : SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.05.02 14:28:16 +0530 2 SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 01/05/2025 1. Default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. 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 20.2.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.2974/2017, whereby, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”) 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act making averments inter alia that the accused persons are the operators and local owners of E. Trading Company and they had received a total amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant for e-job work under the name of the Company “Shri Sai Ram Ventures” with an assurance that this amount would be refunded to the complainant when requested. On 30.9.2016, he gave a cheque of Rs.5,78,200/- for refund of the aforesaid amount and the cheque was issued in the name of “Shri Sai Ram Ventures Private Limited”. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent, however, despite receiving the said notice, the accused persons failed to pay the amount of the cheque, therefore, the complaint case was filed. The trial Court on the grounds that (i) the complainant failed to establish any nexus of the accused persons with Shri Sai Ram 3 Ventures, on whose name, the cheque was issued, and (ii) the respondent/accused has successfully rebutted the presumption, acquitted the respondents/accused by the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. However, learned counsel fairly admits that no document has been filed to connect the respondent/accused with the concern - Shri Sai Ram Ventures. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Indisputably, in the present case, the cheque was issued on behalf of Shri Sai Ram Ventures, however, it has not been made a party to the case. Further, there is no evidence to show that the respondents/accused are the authorities who manage the day to day affairs of the said concern and are also responsible for its conduct. The omission of such crucial evidence is fatal. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been filed to show that there is a legally enforceable debt against the accused persons, therefore, the respondents/accused have successfully rebutted the presumption. 7. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while acquitting the respondents/accused by the impugned judgment. Hence, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one, which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna 4