1 2025:CGHC:19923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1479 of 2025 1 - Nortan Mal Prajapati S/o Late Shri Jaichand Prajapati, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sector -3 Gali No. 02 Behind Kali Mandir Professor Colony, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dinesh Sarkar S/o Sunil Sarkar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Bayasi Colony, Post Bayasi Colony, Vaishya Colony Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused ) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 01/05/2025 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.05.02 14:36:38 +0530 2 1. Default pointed by the Registry is ignored. 2. The petitioner/complainant has filed this Petition under Section 419 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.3.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.221/2024, which, in turn, arises out of the impugned judgment dated 12.6.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.7247/2019. By the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2025 passed by the Appellate Court, 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 respondent/accused obtained a cash loan of Rs.16 lakhs from the complainant for business purpose and for repayment of the same, he gave a cheque dated 29.7.2019 (Ex.P/1). When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured vide Ex.P/2 on account of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a legal notice (ExP/3) was sent. Despite the aforesaid notice, when the cheque amount was not paid, a complaint was preferred. Subsequently, in Criminal Complaint Case No.7247/2019, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur by judgment dated 12.6.2024, convicted the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against which, he preferred an Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.221/2024, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the respondent/accused has been acquitted. Hence, this petition for grant of leave to file Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. He submits that the reason assigned by the Appellate Court is not sufficient to record a finding of acquittal. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant leave to file an Acquittal Appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. 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 evidences brought on record contrary to law. 7. 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 4 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. 8. If we examine the facts of the present case in light of the principle laid down in the above-stated judgments, it appears that the respondent/accused has taken a defence that he had given a blank cheque to Umesh and Gaurav towards transaction of land and the said cheque was misused by them. The First Appellate Court taking into consideration the aforesaid defence in light of the other evidence available on record to the effect that the complainant has failed to demonstrate as to on which date the cash loan was given and how he arranged such huge amount given in cash, acquitted the accused/respondent. Furthermore, no income tax return has also been filed to show that the aforesaid transaction has been taken on record 5 by the complainant. At the time of giving loan also, no document has been executed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the principles laid down in the matter of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148, the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act has been successfully rebutted by the respondent/accused, therefore, the finding arrived at and the view taken by the First Appellate Court is a possible one. 10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are just and proper, which do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. 11.Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna