1 2025:CGHC:2817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 379 of 2016 Asim Kumar Mishra S/o Late Rameshwar Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o Quarter No. 1148/ A, Near Water Tank, New Construction Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Police Station-Tarbahar, Tahsil-Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Arvind Singh S/o Shri P.S. Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Swami Vivekanand School, J.P. Vihar Colony, Mangala, Police Station- Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 .01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.1787/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that In the year 2013, the accused/respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees) from the present appellant for the purpose of meeting his domestic expenses, with a promise to repay the entire amount within six months. After the expiration of the aforementioned period, the appellant contacted the accused/respondent and demanded repayment of the loan. In response, the accused/respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 514676 to repay the appellant's amount. The appellant then presented the cheque to the concerned bank for withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees), but it was dishonored in the month of October 2013. Subsequently, the appellant served a legal notice on the accused/respondent within the prescribed period and thereafter filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. After completion of the trial, the learned trial court dismissed the appellant's case and acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has 3 failed to see the facts and circumstances of the case and passed erroneous order against the eye of law. He further submits that the entire complainant witnesses have corroborated the statement of the complainant, and there are no omissions or contradictions in their testimonies. However, the learned trial court has erred in dismissing the appellant's case and acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This decision is fraught with grave error, and the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the accused/respondent is liable to be convicted. He also submits that the learned trial court has arrived at an erroneous finding that during the cross-examination of the appellant, the accused/respondent had raised questions about the missing cheque, which created doubts in the appellant's case. Instead of convicting the accused/respondent, the trial court dismissed the appellant's case. Furthermore, the learned trial court has also erred in finding that the appellant had given money without following proper procedures, which created doubts in the appellant's case. Instead of convicting the accused/respondent, the trial court dismissed the appellant's case. In light of the above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and convict the accused/respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's case is based on strong evidence, and the trial court's decision to acquit the 4 accused/respondent is contrary to the law and the evidence on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submission and gone through the records filed alongwith this petition. 6. Learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused observing that the stand of the accused that the cheque book was kept in his car and the same had gone missing, creates a doubt about the complainant's case and raises questions about the authenticity of the cheque and thereby drawing the inference that the complainant was not the rightful holder of the cheque in question and this inference is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned trial Court further observed that the analysis of the evidence shows that the accused did not give the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and as such, the accused was not legally liable to pay the complainant the amount of the cheque. Furthermore, it has been observed that the complainant did not come to the court with clean hands thereby rendering his case against the complainant is suspicious. 7. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against 5 acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 8. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which culminated in the acquittal of the respondent/accused of the alleged offence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order for grant of leave to appeal. Moreover, applying the established principles of law governing the scope of appellate jurisdiction, this Court finds no justification to disturb the findings of the learned trial Court as the same are well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil