Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46876 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 71 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Applicant has filed this appeal under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 24.1.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C.-I, Hathras in Complaint No. 216 of 2020, titled Sonpal Singh Vs. Mohd. Nisar, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent no. 2 in complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant has argued that the accused had issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant and for dishonor of the said instrument, a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was instituted, as the accused had refused to make the payment despite issuance of statutory notice, but the trial court has erroneously acquitted the accused. Learned counsel submits that the issuance of cheque and the dishonor are not disputed by the accused and the cheque being signed by him is sufficient to prove the ingredients to constitute the offences, and charges are well established, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2025 is not sustainable. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit of accused tendered in evidence to point out that he had set up a defence that only a sum of Rs.20,000/- was received as loan, therefore, the observation of the trial court that the cheque amount stands cleared by the accused is against the evidence and the defence set up by accused, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2025 calls for interference by this Court. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for complainant-applicant that the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced by the complainant in the year 2018 and to discharge the said liability, the cheque in question was issued by the accused, which got dishonored on 9.1.2020. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that after the dishonor of the cheque, certain payments made in the account of the complainant by the accused were made and the evidence in this regard in the form of account statement of the complainant is on record. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for complainant-applicant has fairly stated that indeed these payments were made by the accused, but these related to some other loan of Rs.19 lacs and another complaint relating to the dishonor of another cheque is also pending trial. The argument by learned counsel for complainant-applicant that as the accused has setup a defence of having received Rs.20,000/- as loan, therefore, the payments made by him in the account of the complainant could not have been construed as discharge of the liability relating to the first loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, is without any force, as the presumption attached with the instrument that it was issued to discharge the legal liability stood rebutted with deposit of Rs.1,67,000/- in the account of the complainant. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and evidence on record while acquitting the accused. By now, it is settled law that if, the prosecution evidence on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favouring the accused is to be adopted, and the trial court has rightly applied this principle. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused. Dismissed. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad