1 2025:CGHC:55721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 738 of 2019 Om Prakash Yadav S/o Nohar Prasad Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Panch Rasta, In Front Of Nagar Nigam Office, Supela, Police Station - Supela, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus Vinay Sharma S/o Shri B. D. Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o 3/2, Staff Quarter, Nehru Nagar (East), Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (CAUSE TITLE IS TAKEN FROM CASE INFORMATION SYSTEM) For appellant : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J ) Judgment on Board 14-11-2025 1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 20-8-2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions, Durg to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (henceforth, referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 142/2019 whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the accused acquitting him of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’) which was preferred against the judgment Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.11.19 11:20:20 +0530 2 dated 20-5-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Distt. Durg in Complaint Case No. 29463/2013 whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 of the IPC against the respondent stating inter alia that, respondent had taken loan of Rs. 80,000/- for domestic purposes from the appellant. For refund of the same, accused had given a cheque dated 21-3-2013 bearing No. 957030 (Annexure P-1-C) payable at the Allahabad Bank, Supela Branch. The cheque was presented before the bank for withdrawal, but the same was returned with a note that ‘Insufficient Fund’, therefore, the appellant sent legal notice (Ex. P-4-C) dated 15- 6-2013 to the respondent for payment of cheque amount, despite that, the amount was not paid, which gave rise to file complaint under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. 3. The accused/respondent abjured his guilt. Complainant examined himself only. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he claimed himself to be innocent stating that, on the basis of old cheque, the appellant has filed false complaint against him. The respondent/accused has examined himself as D.W. 1 and one handwriting expert Sunanda Dhange as D.W. 2 in his defence. 4. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial Court convicted the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 3 138 of the Act and sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 142/2019, in which vide impugned judgment dated 20-8-2019, learned Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court on the ground that, the cheque return memo (Ex. P-2-C) does not contain the endorsement that for what reason, it has been returned, and age of ink of signature of respondent / accused in impugned cheque (Ex. P-1-C) and other written material of cheque (Ex. P-1-C) were filled after a gap of more than 2 years. Being aggrieved, the appellant/complainant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that, at the time of examination of complainant Om Prakash Yadav, original bank slip (Ex. P-2) was filed along with copy of the same. After exhibiting original and photocopy, marking original as Ex. P-2 and its photocopy as Ex. P-2-C, the original bank slip, original cheque, legal notice were returned to the complainant, but inadvertantly, only one side of original bank slip was photocopied in both the sides of the photocopy of bank slip. Learned Appellate Court has held that the Bank slip Ex. P-2-C does not contain ground of dishonour of cheque. He further submits that, original bank slip has been filed by the complainant before this Court as Annexure A-7. Therefore, it is prayed that, the ground taken by the appellate Court is perverse. He further submits that, the respondent/accused has not denied his signature in Ex. P-1-C, therefore, if there would have been any difference in age of 4 ink of signature and other contents of the cheque, it does not entitle the respondent / accused to get acquittal, hence, he prays that, instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court be restored. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that, after due appreciation of evidence available on record, learned appellate Court has set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the trial Court and the appellate Court. 9. Perusal of record of the trial Court, particularly Ex. P-2-C i.e. the bank slip pertaining to cheque return memo shows that, in both the sides, same contents have been photocopied i.e. from column No. 21 to 40, therefore, it is apparent that, first page of slip was not photocopied and filed before the trial Court. Though the appellant/complainant has filed alleged original bank slip before this Court as Annexure A-7, but if there would have been any mistake in filing aforesaid bank slip before the trial Court, then this point would have been raised before the appellate Court, which was not raised before it. Now it is being raised before this Court. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to consider the bank slip filed before this Court as Annexure A-7. Even otherwise, in the original bank slip filed before this Court, point No. 9 has been encircled 5 only. No specific endorsement has been made, therefore, the finding recorded by learned 1st appellate Court on this count cannot be held to be perverse or against the evidence available on record. 10. Having considered the deposition of hand writing expert Sunanda Dhange (D.W. 2) coupled with her report Ex. D-1 and other connected documents, the finding recorded by the 1st appellate Court is not found to be illegal. 11. In view of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned 1st appellate Court acquitting the respondent/accused from the charge under Section 138 of the Act. 12. Hence, instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak