1 2025:CGHC:57214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 662 of 2016 Vijay Kumar Pali S/o Late B.R. Pali Aged About 59 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - M/s Paras Investment Proprietor Rajes Shah, 7 A Rishabh Complex, M.G. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - (Deleted) Anish Shah As Per Honble Court Order Dated 25-11-2025 3 - Rajesh Shah S/o Premji Shah R/o 7 A, Rishibh Complex, M.G. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - M/s Tradelink Corporation Limited, Proprietor Smt. Rupal Shah, W/o Anish Shah, R/o House No. 304, Laxmi Complex, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate as well as Ms. Arun Kocher, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11 .2025 1. The Appellant has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.03.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 205/2012 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.) whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.3 and 4 from offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (In shot, ‘NI RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Act’) by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) No.2 to 4 are engaged in the business of Share Broker in the name of respondent No.1 Paras Investment. The respondent No.4 Smt. Rupal Shah is the Proprietor of M/s. Tradelink Security, the accused Anish Shah is also engaged in M/s Tradelink Security. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) purchased sold shares of Maruti, Hindustan Lever, Mozer Vier, Sachurian Bank and other companies through accused Anish Shah and respondents No.3 and 4 on various dates and an amount of Rs.4,51,324.61/- is due on the accused persons. Against which the accused persons made part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.12.2004 through cheque No.023320 drawn on Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Raipur (C.G.) from Account No.301111 of respondent No.4 in which the accused Anish Shah made his signature. The complainant submitted the aforesaid cheque on 16.12.2004 Allahabad Bank, G.E. Road, Raipur but the said cheque was dishonored for want of sufficient fund in the account of respondent No.4 and accordingly vide Cheque Return Memo dated 16.12.2004 the Bank returned the cheque to complainant. The complainant gave information about dishonor of cheque personally to the accused Anish Shan and respondent No.3 and they told the complainant to present the cheque for payment after some time 3 with an assurance that they would keep sufficient fund in the account. 3. After some time on the instruction of accused Anish Shah and respondent No.3, the complainant again submitted the cheque on 05.05.2005 in his Bank i.e. Allahabad Bank, G.E.Road, Raipur but again the said cheque was returned dishonor vide cheque Return Memo dated 05.05.2005. Thereafter complainant sent legal notice through his Advocate on 16.05.2005 to the accused persons which they received on 18.05.2005 but even after 15 days of receipt of notice the accused persons deliberately not made the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and only thereafter the complainant presented Criminal Complaint before the Court of learned JMFC, Raipur against the respondents/accused persons which was registered as Criminal Case No.205/2012. The complainant submitted the documents i.e. cheque No.023320 of Rs.1,00,000/- as Ex.P-1, Memo of dishonor Ex.P-2, Notice Ex.P-3, receipt of notice Ex. P- 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11, documents of Tradeling Sureties Ex.P-12 & 13 and the documents of Union Bank of India Ex.P-14. 4. The learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) framed charge under Section 138 of NI Act which the accused persons denied. The complainant has examined himself as witness No.1 and Manishanker Prasad, Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Main Branch Raipur as Witness No.2. During pendency of Criminal Case No.205/2012 accused Anish Shah absconded and did not appear before the learned trial Court. After hearing parties the learned Magistrate 4 has acquitted the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the offence/charge under Section 138 of the NI Act vide impugned judgment dated 09/03/2016. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would submit that the learned trail Court has erred by acquitting the respondents No.3 and 4 from the offence charged under Section 138 of NI Act. It is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that a big amount of Rs.4,51,324/- is due on the accused persons. Against which the accused persons provided five cheques bearing Nos. 023320, 023322, 023321, 023323 and 135879 and all the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured then the complainant issued legal notice and thereafter filed five complaint cases i.e. Cr.Case Nos.204/2012, 205/2012, 206/2012, 207/2012 and 208/2012 against dishonor of five cheques before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in which judgments in respect of dishonoured cheque Nos. 023321 for Rs.1,00,000/- vide Cr. Case No.204/2012, cheque No. 135879 for Rs.28,000/- vide Cr. Case No.206/2012 and cheque No. 023323 for Rs. 1,51,324/- vide Cr. Case No. 208/2012 were passed on 24.01.2013 convicting the accused persons for a simple imprisonment of 6-6 months and further ordered for payment of compensation to the complainant Rs.1.50 lacs in Cr. Case No.204/2012, Rs.50,000/- in Cr. Case No.206/2012 and Rs.2.00 lacs in Cr. Case No.208/2012 were passed. The learned trial Court has committed error of law in not believing the testimony of the 5 prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused/respondents No.3 and 4 only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions. 6. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the respondents No.3 and 4 have rightly been acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of NI Act, on the ground that neither the respondents No.3 and nor the respondent No.4 is the the signatory of the cheques in question, whereas it is the accused Anish Shah who is said to have been absconding. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Form the perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the Cheque No. 023320, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, had been issued to the complainant by absconding accused Anish Shah, Proprietor of Tread link Security, towards discharge of liability, and not by the accused Rajesh Shah or Rupal Shah. Hence, it is clear that the responsibility to return the said amount lies solely upon accused Anish Shah, the issuer and signatory of the cheque in question. On which basis the trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the charge under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the Sections under which the accused was being tried, the prosecution had failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which creates grounds for doubting the prosecution’s case and it is well established principle of law that the accused always 6 gets the benefit of doubt and thus, giving the benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents No.3 and 4. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the accused/respondents No.3 and 4 from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow this application seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar