(2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal No.50 of 2024 (Against the judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2023) M/s Modern Auto Stores, having its office at New Kalimati Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, being represented by Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, s/o Sri. B.K. Singh, resident of Holding No.738, New Sitaramdera, P.O.-Agrico, P.S.-Sitaramdera, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum- 831009, Jharkhand ..... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rakesh Arora, proprietor Arora Cargo Movers 119/120C Punjabi Refugee Colony, P.O.-Agrico, Jamshedpur-831009 ….. Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Respondents : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has acquitted the respondent no.2 of this acquittal appeal from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent no.2 issued a cheque drawn in favour of the appellant herein of Rs.6,25,266.20/-. (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 2 Upon being presented, the said cheque was dishonoured on 16.11.2015 for the reason that funds were not sufficient. The complainant sent a notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount on 02.12.2015 through speed post. It is the case of the complainant that the same was received by the accused person who is the respondent no.2 of this acquittal appeal on 03.12.2015 but in-spite of receiving the said notice, as the respondent no.2-accused did not pay the cheque amount hence, the appellant herein filed C/1 Case No. 3044 of 2015 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Vide judgment dated 21.12.2022 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur held the respondent no.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- to the complainant. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 3044 of 2015, respondent no.2 herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2023 in the court of Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur formulated the following point for determination:- “Whether there was any valid cause of action for filing the complaint or not as per requirement of Section 138 (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act?” 4. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur considered that as for the proof of service of notice upon the respondent no.2 demanding payment of the cheque amount, the (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 3 appellant-complainant filed a photocopy of track consignment report of the speed post which was marked Ext.5; the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. reported in 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 685 held that as the photocopy of computer output was without any certificate as envisaged under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act so the authenticity of Ext.5 was doubtful. It was also considered that from Ext.5 it is not evident as to whether the notice was served or delivered to the addressee. In the absence of any proof of delivery of notice, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah & Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 689 came to the conclusion that in terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, a notice may be deemed to have been served in the ordinary course of thirty days after the same was issued and treating that after thirty days from 02.12.2015, the notice would be deemed to have been served upon the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 was having fifteen more days to pay back the money but as the complaint was filed before that i.e. on 22.12.2015, so the complaint is premature. In this respect, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 and set aside the conviction of the respondent no.2 and acquitted him. (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 4 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and against the weight of the materials available in the record. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate court has committed a gross illegality in not appreciating of the evidence put forth by the witnesses of the complaint by holding that notice was duly served upon the respondent no.2 on 03.12.2015 and wrongly acquitted the respondent no.2 by setting aside the judgment of his conviction. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Ext.5 which goes to show that the item was delivered on 03.12.2015, the learned lower appellate court ought not have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. (supra). Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside and the judgment of the learned trial court be restored. 6. Leaned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the undisputed fact remains that Ext.5 is a photocopy of a document and there is no explanation forthcoming from the complainant-appellant as to why it withheld the primary evidence of the computer output; from the trial court. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the complainant-appellant has failed to put (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 5 forth any evidence as is required under Section 65 of the Evidence Act; as to why it introduces secondary evidence of even a computer output. It is then submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that as admittedly Ext.5 is a copy of the computer output, the compliance of the provision of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is required, to treat the same to be a document but as admittedly, the provision of Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been complied with, hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in not relying upon Ext.5; as the same was not duly proved in accordance with law. It is then submitted by them that, in the absence of that, the only option left for the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur was to treat the case as a case, where there was no proof of service of notice demanding payment of the cheque amount from the accused person of the case. Therefore, rightly, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has come to the conclusion that the complaint is premature. Hence, it is submitted that this acquittal appeal being without any merit be dismissed in the absence of any perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Sejappa vs. State (by Police Inspector Lokayakta, Chituadurga) reported in (2016) 12 SCC (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 6 150, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has formulated the principles which are to be followed by the High Courts while hearing an appeal against acquittal and it was held that unless the judgment impugned suffers from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the court below has passed its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court will not disturb the order of acquittal merely on the ground that another view is possible; while reappreciation or re- evaluation of the evidence; if the view taken by the court below is a possible view. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, one of the essential condition to make out the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as it has been mentioned in proviso (c) of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act itself, is to the effect that drawer of such cheque must have failed to make the payment of the said amount of money inter alia to the payee within fifteen days of receipt of notice, demanding payment of the cheque amount. So, the condition precedent for a court to come to the conclusion that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was that it must come to the conclusion from the evidence available in the record that the accused persons did not pay the amount mentioned in the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. Therefore, to calculate these fifteen days, it must be proved before the learned trial court as to on which date the notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, was received by the drawer of the cheque. (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 7 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only evidence that can be put forth by the complainant to establish this fact is Ext.5 that is the track consignment record of an article sent through speed post. The undisputed fact remains that the same is a photocopy of the computer output. There is no explanation why the original computer output was not brought on record. There is no explanation why the photocopy of the computer output was introduced by way of secondary evidence when the original computer output could have been filed. 10. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. which was also reported in AIR 2015 SC 180 as well as (2014) 10 SCC 473 that the purpose of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form generated by a computer. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document; only if the conditions mentioned in Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act are satisfied without further proof or production of original. 11. Now the undisputed fact remains that this is a case, where the condition mentioned under Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act has not been satisfied. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in not accepting Ext.5 to be admissible in (2025:JHHC:34287) Acq. App. No.50 of 2024 8 evidence and in the absence of that as there was no proof that the accused person-respondent no.2 received the notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount on 03.12.2015 as claimed by the complainant so the only way out is by taking the aid of the General Clauses Act which provides for the presumption of service of notice within the period of thirty days from the date of issuance but by that yardstick, the complaint was filed within the period of forty five days from the date of issue of notice as the complaint was undisputedly filed on 22.12.2015. So, the complaint was premature. 13. Because of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any merit in this acquittal appeal. 14. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 05/12/2025