HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 408 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicant- Govind has filed this application for leave to appeal under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to challenge the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No.1298 of 2017, titled Govind Vs. Vijay Pal Singh, Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the accused has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant- complainant referred to the grounds pleaded in the application seeking leave to appeal, as well as the grounds of appeal and argued that the trial court has not carefully examined the evidence on record while acquitting the accused in a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He submits that the ingredients to constitute the offence were duly proved and the complainant had supported the case, despite that the trial court acquitted the accused, therefore, the interference is called for by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. He prays for grant of leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that as per the averments contained in the complaint (Annexure No.2), it is clearly pleaded by the complainant that the accused had promised to arrange a job of clerk in railways for the complainant, who against the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-, had received a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in-cash on 10th August, 2016, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be given after the arrangement of the job. Till September, 2016, nothing was done, as the complainant did not get any job, therefore, he demanded his money back, whereupon the subject cheque no.108507 of Union Bank of India, Bulandshahr dated 08.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was given, but the same was dishonored. Apparently, according to complainant himself the money was given as a bribe and the transaction (contract between the parties) is void in law, therefore, it being not a legal liability much-less a legally enforceable debt, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Govind .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the complaint itself suffered from material defects. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 6th May, 2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the contents of the complaint and the evidence of the complainant, while acquitting the accused. Thus, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment dated 6th May, 2025 as the same is based on correct appreciation of material on record as well as law on the subject. Resultantly, the application seeking leave to appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) July 16, 2025 Raj NC413 No. 408 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad