Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114876 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 45 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir,Prateek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicant-Appellant, namely, Amit Kumar has filed this application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S., 2023 against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional court, Saharanpur in Criminal Complaint No.875 of 2018, titled Amit Kumar Vs. Ishwar Chand, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, registered at Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur by which the trial court acquitted the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant- complainant has argued that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was advanced by complainant to the accused in the year 2013, on his promise that the said amount would be returned along with interest and in order to discharge the said liability the cheque in question dated 1st May, 2018 amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- was issued, which on presentation got dishonoured. He submits that despite issuance of statutory notice demanding the said amount, the accused neither responded to the notice nor made the payment, therefore, the subject complaint was filed seeking his prosecution for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Learned counsel has argued that the ingredients to constitute the offence were duly proved before the trial court, but the accused has been acquitted on the ground that as the money was advanced in the year 2013 and the debt being time barred could not have been legally enforced. He submits that the impugned order of acquittal is against the evidence on record, therefore, it calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused and argued that the trial court has relied upon the documentary evidence adduced by the defence, whereby the clearance of the alleged debt is duly proved and the said transactions are directed from the account of the accused to the account of the complainant. According to learned senior counsel once the said debt was already cleared, the presumption that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the liability is rebutted, therefore, he prays that the appeal be dismissed, as the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2025 is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that concededly, the complaint instituted by the applicant- complainant only refers to the advancement of loan to the accused in the year 2013, but it does not mention the subsequent dates when the payments were made by the accused to the complainant. The said evidence as notice by the trial court in the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below; "In order to substantiate aforementioned payments the accused has filed on record in his defence has filed on record attested copies of following three bank accounts- (1) Statement of account of Ishwar Chand No.65012919052 being maintained in State Bank of India (16-B/1 and 20-B). Perusal of this statement reveals that on 24.02.2015 the accused had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant Amit Kumar through cheque no.366519. (2) Statement of account no.65245320086 of the proprietary Firm of accused namely "Zamindara Timbers" being maintained in State Bank of India (Paper No.16/B/2 and Paper No.21-B). Perusal of this document reveals that on 3.2.2016 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant through cheque no.429073. (3) Statement of account no.4002002100003455 of the proprietary Firm of accused namely "Zamindara Timbers" being maintained in Punjab National Bank (paper No.16-B/3 and 22-B). Perusal of this document reveals that on 30.7.2016 the accused had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant through cheque no.543212. All these copies of statement of accounts are attested copies issued by responsible Bank officials and therefore there are admissible in evidence. So there is no logic not to believe these documents." The above material clearly establishes that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- stood received by the complainant after advancement of loan, and before dishonour of cheque. Further, during the course of hearing, Mr. Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the above fact, who states that indeed the said amount was received by the complainant, but according to him it relates to some different business transaction. The Advancement of loan by complainant to the accused is also aimed to earn profit, as he was to receive interest and the same also amounts to a business transaction, and the failure on the part of the complainant to disclose these subsequent transactions between the parties amounts to material concealment with an object to draw the statutory presumption attached to the instrument, but during trial, the defence evidence has successfully shattered the said presumption by establishing the clearance of debt. Thus, in this background, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond doubt. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the trial court has carefully examined the evidence of the parties on record and has drawn a possible conclusion, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, the application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad