2025:CGHC:2278 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.R. No. 1057 of 2017 Satendra Kumar Singh, S/o C. D. Singh, aged about 44 Years, R/o M I G 2/424, Amdi Nagar, Hudco Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh ------ Appellant Versus Mukhtar Singh, S/o Karam Singh, aged about 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 92, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC, 1973 has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09/08/2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Distt. – Durg (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.26/2017 whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No.437/2012 by the order dated 07/07/2016. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant made a complaint that the ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.24 15:42:12 +0530 -2- accused had taken Rs.2,00,000/- as loan from the complainant for his domestic need due to old acquaintance between the complainant and the accused. Upon asking the complainant to return his money, accused gave a disputed cheque to the complainant for discharge of his liability and for payment of loan. As per the instruction of the accused, the complainant deposit the cheque in the Bank, State Bank of India, Branch, Bhilai for payment which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant sent a registered notice to the accused but he does not reply to it on time and as the accused failed to pay the amount under the cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of registered notice, complaint was filed. Therefore, the offence under Section under section 138 of N.I. Act was registered. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution was unable to prove the evidence available on record and finding of the trial court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and suffers from material irregularity and failed without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that that the Court below having found that the cheque was dishonoured and the amount was not paid, the learned trial court on meticulous examination of the evidence gave a well merited finding which does not require interference. 6. After appreciating the evidence available on record trial court and appellate Court The Court below, while relying upon the complainant's case and his evidence, have sought corroboration from the contents of the cheque, which was also produced before the Court, endorsement of the bank thereon. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the evidence it is quite vivid that the complainant had stated that he had lent Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused but no written has been produced in relation to the lent amount. It does not seem credible that for any person to lend a large -3- amount of Rs.2 Lakhs without any written record and the complainant has failed to prove the cheque was given for the loan amount without any agreement. The learned J.M.F.C. and A.S.J. has given a categorical finding of acquittal on due assessment of evidence. The findings recorded cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to evidence. It is a settled law that when exercising revisional jurisdiction, Courts generally cannot appreciate the evidence. In the revisional jurisdiction, Court cannot act as an appellate to re-evaluate the evidence to arrive a different findings. The revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct manifest error of law. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment impugned. 9. In light on the above, this instant revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. -Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish