1 2025:CGHC:17298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.624 of 2024 Subhash Jena S/o Late Navkishore Jena Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. H-1/57 Narmda Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Complainant versus Chaitanya Chokhani S/o S. Chokhani (P. Chokhani) Aged About 35 Years R/o A-20, Minocha Colony Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o- C/o Shyam Sunder Modi Building, Gaiti Talkies Road Sadar Sambalpur, Orissa ..... Respondent/accused For Appellant : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 15.04.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Complaint Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.04.16 18:04:15 +0530 2 Case No.149/2016 whereby, the Respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/accused has taken loan to the tune of Rs.5 lacs from the Appellant/Complainant in the month of April, 2015 and also gave assurance that the same would be repaid by him within 6 months for which, he has issued a cheque (Ex.P-1) dated 05.10.2015 and when the said cheque was presented for encashment (Ex.P-2), the payment was stopped (Ex.P-3) showing the reason ‘stopped by drawer’. A legal notice (Ex.P-4) has been sent even after which, payment was not done, therefore, a complaint case was filed and thereafter, the trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused. 3. Shri Agrawal submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective as the cheque has been issued and the signature of the Respondent/accused was also not disputed, therefore, there is a legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and prays to allow the Appeal. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal with utmost care. 5. In the matter of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohani reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, the three Judges Bench held that presumption mandated by Section 139 of the NI Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a 3 rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. 6. Here in the instant case, the Appellant/Complainant has failed to explain as to in whose presence, the loan was given to the Respondent/accused and has also failed to prove the source of money. He categorically admits that the said transaction was not taken in the records of Income Tax Return. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case of Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa reported in (2024) 8 SCC 573 that when the Complainant has failed to prove the financial capacity or acknowledgment of any Income Tax Return, it creates doubt with regard to the transaction, the reason recorded by the trial Court which is based on the evidence available on record granting benefit to the Respondent/accused is found to be well merited as the view taken by the said Court is a possible one and as such, no interference is warranted. 7. Consequently, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya