1 2025:CGHC:17297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.332 of 2024 Hemant Sahu S/o Late Shri Basant Sahu, Aged About 43 Years Proprietor Shiv Borwells And Pump, R/o Nandai Chowk, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Complainant versus Piyush Ghosh S/o Shri P.C. Ghosh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pakhanjur, Ravindrapalli Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar C.G. ...Respondent/accused For Appellant : Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 15.04.2025 1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Rajnandgaon in Complaint Case Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.04.16 18:01:50 +0530 2 No.2714/2009 whereby, the Respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’). 3. As per the complaint, the Complainant is running a business of bore wells and pump under the name of Shiv Borewells & Pump at Nandai Chowk, Rajnandgaon. The Respondent/accused, being the customer of the Appellant/Complainant, got the borewells of his Firm installed at various places for which, he has given a cheque (Ex.P-1) amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and when the said cheque was presented in the Bank for encashment, the same was dishonoured (Ex.P-2) showing the reason ‘Account closed’. Even after serving a legal notice on the Respondent/accused, payment was not done, therefore, a complaint case was filed. 4. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, has acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence this Appeal. 5. Shri Bharadwaj submits that the learned JMFC has wrongly acquitted the Respondent/accused. However, he fairly admits that no document has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant to establish the nexus between him and Shiv Borewells & Pump. 6. On the flip side, Shri Sahu supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent/accused. He placed reliance on the matter of Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 3 275 and submits that in the said matter, it has been observed that mere statement in the affidavit is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law as no documentary evidence was filed by the Complainant therein to establish nexus with the proprietorship in concern. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal with utmost care. 8. Having considered the submissions made, particularly the fact that the Appellant/Complainant has failed to establish that he is the Proprietor of the Firm, which is in the name of Shiv Borewells & Pump in whose name the cheuqe was issued and thus, has failed to establish any locus with regard to the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act as per the ratio laid down in the matter of Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr. (supra), this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned JMFC, which are just and proper. 9. Resultantly, this Appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya