1 2025:CGHC:22944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 443 of 2024 • M/s Durg Tractors Through- Proprietor Ajay Singh, S/o. Ram Kunwar Singh, Aged About-60 Years, R/o. In Front Of Shyam Dharmkanta, Jewra Sirsa, Dhamdha Road, P.S.- Jewra Sirsa, Durg, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • Om Narayan Sahu S/o. Bisahu Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village-Bhawardah, Post-Purda, Chowki-Khandsara, P.S.- Dadhi, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.05.2023 passed by the JMFC, District Durg in RCC No.1261/2017, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.11 18:04:41 +0530 2 2. Case of the complaint is that the complainant is an authorized seller of Mahindra Escorts Tractors and is doing business in the name of M/s Durg Tractors at District Durg. On 25.04.2015, the respondent/accused purchased a tractor and accessories and for the payment of the said purchase, issued the cheque, the same got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent. However, even after the said notice, the payment was not made by the respondent. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there is a legal presumption under Sections 139 & 118 of the NI Act but the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and only on the ground that the return memo has not been exhibited in a legal manner, as the seal of the Bank is necessary in the return memo (Ex-P/2), acquitted the respondent/accused, which is not legal and proper. She places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Tulshi Steel Traders vs. Purva Construction on 08.04.2025 in ACQA No.425/2024. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and other documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 5. The learned trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the signature on the impugned cheque has not been disproved by the respondent/accused, so the adverse inference and presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was rightly drawn against the respondent/accused. Since return memo (Ex-P/2) was not affixed with 3 the authorized seal of the Bank, as the same was computer-generated, this Court is of the view that when the other facts and circumstances of the case are proved against the respondent/accused and also a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is held to be in favour of the complainant, merely because in the absence of seal and signature on the cheque, forwarding memo of the Bank was returned, the finding of the trial Court that no presumption regarding the dishonoured cheque could be drawn is not sustainable. Even in such circumstances, the complainant may be given a liberty to call the officer of the Bank who is well aware of the affairs of the dishonoured cheques of the Bank. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh as per the direction given by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs. 7. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.07.2025. 8. The complainant is at liberty to make suitable efforts for the presence of the respondent/accused, as no one appeared on his behalf before this Court and thereafter, the trial Court shall make earnest endeavor to conclude the trial in an expeditious manner. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka