Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37266 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 52 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Radiant Inks And Coatings Opposite Party :- Jung Bahadur Singh Alias J.B. Singh Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar,Vaibhav Singh Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Appellant- complainant- M/S Radiant Inks And Coatings is aggrieved against the judgment dated 03.01.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Kanpur Nagar in a Complaint Case No.9671 of 2020, titled M/s Radiant Inks & Coatings Vs. Jung Bahadur Singh, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby respondent- accused- Jung Bahadur Singh Alias J.B. Singh has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the cheque in question dated 7th November, 2019 was issued by the respondent- accused to discharge the liability of Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was dishonoured twice i.e. on 9th November, 2019 and 5th February, 2020. He submits that the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that the complainant has not disclosed the material fact of first presentation of the cheque, which had dishonoured on 9th November, 2019. According to the learned counsel, the accused raised the defence that he had cleared the cheque amount, but in the absence of any evidence in this regard the said defence could not have been accepted. That Apart, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in all a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- was outstanding against the accused, therefore, in the absence of the clearance of the debt and dishonour of the cheque, the ingredients to constitute the offences were complete, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court. During the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by learned counsel that after dishonour of the cheque on 9th November, 2019, a payment of Rs.2,50,000/- (equivalent to the cheque amount) was transferred by the accused by way of RTGS and the accounts statement (Annexure No.1) adduced evidence by the complainant contained the said entry. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, as evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Once, the complaint and the cheque in question is confined to a debt of Rs.2,50,000/-, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant that the total debt outstanding against the accused was more than Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore, in the absence of the clearance of the said amount, the acquittal calls for interference, is without any force. Most importantly, in response to the statutory notice, the accused sent his reply and revealed making of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of RTGS in the account of the complainant, and this assertion, coupled with the entry in the statement of accounts adduced by complainant in evidence supports the defence of the accused that the debt relating to cheque stood cleared. Thus, the presumption attached to the instrument stood rebutted and further the reasoning given by the trial court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Resultantly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025/Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad