1 2025:CGHC:22914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1606 of 2025 Dinesh Baderiya S/o Late Jagdishchandra Baderiya Aged About 64 Years Occupation - Business, R/o Bajarpara, Baikunthpur, Distt. - Koriya (C.G.), (Complainant) ... Applicant. versus Dronacharya Dubey Marketing In-Charge, Dainik Bhaskar Koriya, Near B.S.N.L. Office, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Distt. - Koriya (C.G.), (Accused) ... Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 10.06.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 - An application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. 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 16.12.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, Koriya in Complaint Case Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.06.12 10:50:12 +0530 2 No.44/2018, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). 4. As per complaint case, the complainant is doing business of publication of advertisement styled as "Baderiya Advertisers" and respondent/accused is marketing in-charge in Dainik Bhaskar publication. At the instance of the respondent/accused, the complainant published advertisement, for which, he has given post dated cheque of the date 15.04.2017 of Rs.42,000/- (Ex.P-1). When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the accused, however, despite receiving the same, payment was not made, therefore, a complaint was filed. 5. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this leave to appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective though there is a legal presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the NI Act. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 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 3 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. 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 4 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. 10.Reverting back to the present case, the complainant Dinesh Baderiya admitted in his cross-examination that he has told the accused that he has to recover the arrears and for such purpose he gave him a cheque and when amount will realize he will present the cheque for encashment. He also admitted that when the respondent/accused was engaged in his job, his mother fell ill, therefore, he left the job and he denied that he has not returned the cheque. The trial Court after evaluating the overall evidence on record reached to the conclusion that there was dispute regarding payment of recovery towards advertisement and respondent/accused was engaged for such purpose. So the complainant failed to establish that there is legal enforceable liability against the respondent/accused. Moreover, he has not filed 5 any statement of account showing that what charges he has received for advertisement and how payment was not paid. In such circumstances, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption stipulated by Section 139 of the NI Act 1881. It is also established that where two views are possible, then the appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere and reverse the findings of acquittal. 11.Considering the aforesaid facts and in light of the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner failed establish a case for grant of leave to appeal and that the findings arrived at by the trial Court in the judgment of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. 12.In the result, the application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay