1 2025:CGHC:44635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 366 of 2019 Shri Sai Agro Through Proprietor - Kamlesh Singh Rajput S/o Shri B. N. Rajput, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Bypass Raipur Road, Kawardha, Thana And Tahsil - Kawardha, District- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh...........(Complainant) ... Appellant(s) versus Ramcharan S/o Pardeshi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village- Patuva (Chhatarpur), Post/ Thana & Tahsil - Baihar, District- Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh.......... (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, Advocate on behalf Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 02/09/2025 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Kabirdham (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.77/2018, setting aside the judgment dated 22.6.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.720/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, whereby, the respondent/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act, 1881”). By the impugned judgment, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the said charge. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that as per the averments in the complaint, a complaint case was filed on 18.7.2016 stating that the complainant is an authorised sub-dealer of New Holland Tractors and is running the business under the name and style of ‘Sai Export’ at Raipur Road, Kawardha. On 23.10.2014, the respondent/accused accompanied by his son Lekhram visited the subject firm and purchased one tractor-trolley; however, he later returned its trolley. In the purchase price, the respondent/accused was also given rebate to the tune of Rs.68,851/-. The respondent/accused and his son paid some part of the amount in cash, while a portion was financed through the Financer -Chola Mandalam. For the remaining amount of Rs.2,45,953/-, the respondent/accused agreed to pay the same within a period of 1-2 months. It was also agreed that if the said amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the rebate of Rs.68,851/-, which had been granted, would be withdrawn. The respondent/accused 3 failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period and thereafter, upon repeated demands, he issued a cheque dated 26.4.2016 for Rs.3,14,000/- (Ex.P/1) in the name of M/s. Sai Agro. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured vide Ex.P/2 and thereafter, a legal notice (Ex.P/6) was sent. Despite the said notice, when the cheque amount was not paid, the complaint case has been filed. 3. During trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove his case, the complainant has examined himself and exhibited 9 documents i.e. Ex.P/1-original cheque, Ex.P/2-Return Memo, Ex.P/3- Registered Notice, Ex.P/4 and 4A - Postal Receipt(s), Ex.-P/5 - Acknowledgment, Ex.-P/6 Legal Demand Notice, Ex.-P/7 - Postal Receipt, Ex.P/8C - Dealership Certificate and Ex.-P/9C- Registration Certificate pertaining to accused/respondent’s vehicle bearing registration No. CG09JA9959. 4. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the respondent/accused stated that he has been falsely implicated and he had no transaction with the complainant-firm. He has given a blank cheque to the Financer Cholamandalam and the said cheque was misused. The accused examined himself in his defence and exhibited 8 documents to demonstrate that the transaction with the firm was undertaken by his son Lekhram. Furthermore, various receipts Ex.D/1 to D/6 were issued in his son’s name. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence, 4 convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and awarded a sentence of RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the respondent/accused was to undergo additional RI for 3 months. Against this, the respondent/accused preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, whereas, the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in support of its judgment, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is perverse. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondent/ accused. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Complainant Kamlesh Singh Rajput (CW-1) during his cross- examination categorically admitted that he has not filed any document to establish that any transaction was made with the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused, by examining himself, categorically denied having made any transaction with the complainant-firm. Furthermore, a defence has been taken by him that he had given blank cheque(s) to the FinancerChola Mandalam, at the time of purchasing a tractor in the name of his 5 son Lekhram. He contended that the said cheque(s) has been misused. 9. Furthermore, the complainant has denied that all dues have already been cleared; however, he has not produced any ledger account to substantiate his claim. The complainant has also admitted that earlier, a Demand Notice was sent in the name of the accused’s son - Lekhram, despite being aware that the vehicle was financed in the name of accused- Ramcharan. The complainant has also admitted that an agreement (Shartnama) was executed by Lekhram, son of the accused, on 23.10.2014. However, the complainant did not produce any ledger account or other documents to substantiate the claim of outstanding dues or to establish the fairness of the alleged transaction. 10. In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of a legal enforceable debt in respect of the amount for which the cheque was issued. Further, the defence taken by the respondent/accused that the cheque was given at the time of financing to the Financer cannot be ruled out as a probability. In such backdrop, the presumption under Section 118/139 of the Act, 1881 has been successfully rebutted by the accused. 11. In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the law has been reiterated that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if 6 the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; and that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible. 12. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment(s) passed by the Appellate Court and the view taken by it is a possible one. 13.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna