1 2025:CGHC:17529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2870 of 2024 M/s Vishal Builders, through its Partner, Vishal Gawri, S/o Nemichand Gawri, A/o 45 Years, R/o Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - M/s Fibro Blast Doors Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Lakshmikant Vishnudasji Karwa, S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre, Chainsukh Road, Latur, District Latur, (M.H.) 2 - Laxmikant Vishnudas Karwa, S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre, Chainsukh Road, Latur, District Latur, (M.H.) 3 - Yogesh Vishnudas Karwa, S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre, Chainsukh Road, Latur, District Latur, (M.H.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, on behalf of Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 16/04/2025 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copies. 2. Upon due consideration, the application (I.A. No. 01/2024) stands allowed and the appellant is exempted to file typed copies of page No. 33 & 36. 3. Also Heard on I.A. No. 02/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. Upon due consideration and considering the reasons assigned therein the application (I.A. No. 02/2024) stands allowed the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Appellant has filed an application under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5300/2018 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “the Act, 1881”). 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant has filed a complaint case on 29.09.2018, thereafter the offence of particulars was prepared on 15.11.2022 and the case was listed for the hearing and the date of first hearing was on 04.01.2023. Learned counsel for the appellant during his submission has shown the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court and would submit that the trial Court has closed the evidence on 11.06.2024, though the complainant has not examined any complainant evidence and by the impugned judgment, the respondent/accused has been acquitted only on the ground of want of the evidence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 3 Act, 1881. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sufÏcient opportunity has not been granted by the trial Court to lead evidence. He would further submit that the respondent/accused has not disputed the issuance of the cheque, so there is a legal presumption against him, so the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is perverse and the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges. He would further submit that for the ends of justice the matter may be remitted back to decide the same on merits. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the documents annexed with petition and also the copy of the order-sheet which has been placed during the submission and the counsel is also directed to file the same during the course of the day before the Registry. 9. Having gone through the order-sheet of the trial Court it reveals that though the trial Court has given a warning on 08.01.2024 and also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter the case was listed for complainant evidence on 26.02.2024 on such day, the complainant has filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to lead the secondary evidence, which was allowed on 09.04.2024 and again the case was listed for the complainant evidence on 11.06.2024 on such day, the complainant has not adduced any evidence and an application has been filed by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was out of station for some business related work. So, the grounds taken in the memo that no sufÏcient opportunity has not been extended to the complainant/appellant is not found correct. Further, when the complainant/appellant himself was so negligent and not bothered for his 4 case and also not taken appropriate steps to advance the case, particularly when the accused had appeared and the counsel for the accused was regularly appearing on his behalf. Also considering for the summons trial, to meet out such exigencies, Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the accused. 10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly closed the evidence after availing sufÏcient opportunity to the complainant and for want of evidence the respondent/accused has been acquitted, as such the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding. 11. Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of leave and the same is refused, in consequence, instant Cr.M.P is bereft of any substance and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge U. K. Raju