1 2025:CGHC:60392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1389 of 2025 Anita Ekka W/o Kanshi Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Accused) --- Applicant. versus Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Santlal Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Radhapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Complainant). --- Respondent For Applicant-Accused : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent-Complainant : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The instant revision is filed against the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur, District Ambikapur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.56/2025 (Rajendra Agrawal vs. Anita Ekka), whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/complainant against judgment & acquittal dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.179/2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G) has been 2 allowed. 3. Relevant facts for disposal of this revision is that Smt. Shweta Agrawal (wife of respondent) is a proprietor of Shanti Bricks Industries which is engaged in business of sale of Cement, Iron Rod and Sand and respondent herein was authorized to act on behalf of Smt. Shweta Agrawal. On 21.08.2021 and 25.08.2021, applicant has purchased the building materials from Shanti Bricks Industries amounting to Rs.2,32,000/- and Rs.4,18,000/-(Total-Rs. 6,32,000) on the assurance to pay the said amount within a week, however, despite of repeated request no payment was made by the applicant. Subsequently, applicant has issued cheque bearing no. 550608 amounting to Rs.6,50,000/ in name of Shanti Bricks Industries. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, cheque is dishonored due to insufficient funds. On 06.12.2021, legal notice was issued by the respondent for payment of due amount, which was received by applicant on 07.12.2021, but no efforts were made by applicant for payment of due amount, therefore, complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed on 05.1.2022 by the complainant against the applicant. The learned JMFC, Sitapur vide order dated 04.02.2025 dismissed the complaint of the respondent and recorded very specific finding that respondent is not payee who is authorized to receive the cheque and held that respondent-complainant has failed to prove that Smt. Shweta Agrawal is a proprietor of Shanti Bricks, therefore, complainant is not holder of cheque. Being aggrieved by order dated 04.02.2025, respondent-complainant has filed an appeal under Section 372 of 3 Cr.P.C and by the impugned judgment learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of trial Court dated 04.02.2025. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned judgment dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Learned Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the applicable law and facts on record. Respondent- complainant has failed to establish that Smt. Shweta Agrawal is a proprietor of Shanti Bricks Industries. No power of attorney placed on record by respondent-complainant to show that Smt. Shweta Agrawal had authorized him to file the complaint against the applicant. Learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that even authorization letter is marked as exhibit then also the complainant has to proprietorship of firm. Photocopy of G.S.T bills is not admissible even in secondary evidence. Authorization letter is not legal document to depose on behalf of complainant. The power of attorney holder can depose and verify on Oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions. Learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that without seeking permission under Section 65 of Evidence Act document cannot be read or marked as exhibit. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order/judgment be quashed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Court in case of 4 Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant opposes the submission of counsel for the applicant and submits that learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2025 after taking into all the aspect of the case. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the impugned Judgment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the revision including the orders of the Courts below. 7. Perusal of records shows that respondent-complainant had filed a complaint case against the applicant-accused under Section 138 of the NI Act before the trial Court and to show the proprietorship of the Shanti Bricks Industries, he has produced only photocopy of GST Bills/GST registration certificate before the Court. Trial Court concerned has dismissed the complaint case of the respondent on the ground that photocopy of GST Bills/GST registration certificate is not admissible even in secondary evidence because respondent has not filed the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, however, in an appeal filed by the respondent, the Appellate Court has only considered one point that power of attorney was filed by the respondent to show that Smt. Shweta Agrawal has authorized him to file a complaint against the applicant- accused is on record, therefore, matter should have been remanded back to the concerned trial Court to mark the authorization letter as exhibit, but Appellate Court failed to consider this aspect which has already been pointed out by the trial Court that GST registration 5 certificate is not admissible even in secondary evidence and complainant has failed to produce the original copy of the GST registration certificate. 8. For the foregoing reasons/discussions, impugned judgment Annexure A-1 is hereby set-aside and matter is remand back to the Appellate Court concerned to decide the issue whether online copy of the GST certificate is admissible or not ? 9. It is made clear that the Appellate Court shall decide the matter afresh on its own merits without influence by the order of this Court. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-