1 2025:CGHC:46173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 476 of 2019 1 - Ravindra Kumar Verma S/o Tejram Verma Aged About 32 Years Prop. Triveni Trading Company Utai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rakesh Shukla S/o Malare Shukla Aged About 40 Years Proprietor, Gyan Ganga And Company, Near Railway Crossing- Bijuri Colliery , Shahdol Madhya Pradesh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Pravin Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Smt. Jyoti Kaushik appears on behalf of Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Shri SK Puriya, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 10/09/2025 : 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 2.2.2007 passed in CRA No.144/2006 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, whereby the respondent No.1/accused has been KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.09.10 16:09:37 +0530 2 acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Necessary facts, as per the averments made in the complaint, are that the complainant is the proprietor of Triveni Trading Company and he was dealing with respondent No.1/accused in connection with business purposes. The respondent No.1/accused is the proprietor of Gyan Ganga & Company. The respondent No.1/accused has appointed the complainant’s company as authorized dealer for selling various beverage products in Durg region. It was agreed between the complainant and the respondent No.1/accused that the items/goods which were not sold would be returned to the accused’ company and the cost of the said items/goods would be repaid to the complainant without any condition. As per the aforesaid terms, respondent No.1/accused has issued a cheque dated 3rd September, 2001 for Rs.2 lakhs in lieu of payment for the returned goods. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured vide Ex.-P/2. Thereafter, legal notice (Ex.-P/3) dated 1.10.2001 was sent through registered post, which was refused. When the cheque amount was not paid, the complaint case was filed. 3. During trial, the respondent No.1/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has examined himself and 2 witnesses namely Prahlad Singh Verma (CW-2) and RK Dubey (CW-3) and exhibited 5 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the respondent No.1/accused has pleaded false implication. 3 The trial Court after evaluating the evidence convicted the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, against which the respondent/accused has preferred an Appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well merited finding recorded by the trial Court. He prays to allow the Appeal and convict the respondent/accused. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/accused would support the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal as also other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the cheque (Ex.-P/1) dated 3rd September, 2001 was issued by the respondent No.1/accused. As per the statement of complainant’s witness (CW-2) Prahlad Singh Verma, the then clerk of the Cooperative Society, Utai, the cheque (Ex.-P/1) was presented before the Bank on 29th August, 2001. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that the postdated cheque remains only a bill of exchange till the date shown on its face and only from that date it becomes a cheque on being payable on demand. 10. In this regard, the law is well settled in the matter of Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs. Gulshan Rai {(1993) 4 SCC 424} that a postdated cheque should be reckoned from the date shown on the face of such cheque and 4 not from the date on which it was drawn. Further, the postdated cheque remains only a bill of exchange till the date shown on its face and only from that date it becomes a cheque on being payable on demand. Relevant para-14 of the said judgment reads thus:- "14. An offence to be made out under the substantive provisions of Section 138 of the Act it is mandatory that the cheque is presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. It is the cheque-drawn which has to be presented to the bank within the periods specified therein. When a post- dated cheque is written or drawn it is only a bill of exchange and as such the provisions of Section 138(a) are not applicable to the said instrument. The post- dated cheque becomes a cheque under the Act on the date which is written on the said cheque and the six months period has to be reckoned for the purposes of Section 138(a) from the said date. One of the main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is, the return of the cheque by the bank unpaid. Till the time the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, no offence under Section 138 is made out. A post-dated cheque cannot be presented before the bank and as such the question of its return would not arise. It is only when the post-dated cheque becomes a "cheque", with effect from the date shown on the face of the said cheque, the provisions of Section 138 come into play. The net result is that a post-dated cheque remains a bill of exchange till the date written on it. With effect from the date shown on the face of the said cheque it becomes a "cheque" under the Act and the provisions of Section 138(a) would squarely be attracted. In the present case the post-dated cheques were drawn in March 1990 but they became "cheques" in the year 1991 on the dates shown therein. The period of six months, therefore, has to be reckoned from the dates mentioned on the face of the cheques.” 11. Considering the entire fact situation of the case and the settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate Court has rightly drawn a conclusion that the cheque was presented by the complainant prior to the date shown on its face and the post-dated cheque only 5 becomes a cheque from the date mentioned on it and prior to it, the same remains a bill of exchange and as such, the provisions of Section 138 (a) of the NI Act are not applicable to the said instrument. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the appellate Court is possible one and no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate Court. 13. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve