1 2025:CGHC:15100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 62 of 2025 • Premichand Sahu S/o Pritam Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram Bahar, P.S. And Tahsil Aarang, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. versus • Dhanmantri Sahu @ Dhawantri Sahu S/o Shiv Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Javai Bandha, Post Khola Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent. For appellant. : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the acquittal order dated 17-10-2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur in Complaint Case No. 4016 of 2018 whereby the respondents/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, mainly contending that; (a) the appellant/complainant and respondent/accused are known to each other and the respondent/accused requested the appellant to sell the Rabi and Kharif paddy crop produced from his agricultural land to the tune of 583 quintal 52 k.g for consideration of Rs.8,22,760/- in the year 2016-2017 at the rate of Rs.1410/- per quintal, accordingly he sold the paddy to the accused. (b) the accused/respondent to discharge his liability has given a cheque bearing No. 000010 of Rs. 8,22,760/- on 1-4-2018 drawn in favour of the HDFC Bank in the account being maintained by the accused. On 9-5-2018 the complainant deposited the said cheque for clearance in the Punjab National bank, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufÏcient fund on 11-5-2018 with an endorsement "dishonoured due to insufÏcient fund". Again the accused advised the appellant to deposit the same. Accordingly he has deposited the same on 22-5-2018 which has been again dishonoured on 24-5-2018. Thereafter, the appellant through his counsel sent a legal demand notice to the accused/respondent on 30-6- 2018. Neither the accused has replied to the said notice nor has paid the said amount to the complainant, therefore, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent/accused which was registered as complaint case No. 4016 of 2018. (c) Learned trial court taking cognizance has issued notice to the accused to appear before the learned trial Court. During the trial the appellant examined himself by way of an afÏdavit as provided under Section 145 of 3 the N.I. Act reiterating the contentions raised in the complaint. The complainant to prove his case has exhibited cheque as Exhibit P/1, return memo as Exhibit P/2 & 3 registered notice Ex.P/4, postal receipt Ex./P/5, and acknowledgment receipt Ex.P/6. The complainant was extensively cross-examined by the accused wherein he has stated that to prove the liability of the accused, no documents regarding sale of paddy to the accused have been produced. He has also admitted that he has 3.5 acres of land and out of 1 acre land he has produced 25 quintals of paddy and also admitted that according to production capacity of the land owned by him 80.7 quintals of paddy can be produced. He has also admitted that as per the policy of the Government he has to sell the paddy to the society. He has admitted that in Ex.P/2 and D/3 the drawer's signature differs. (d) The accused has not examined any witness, but he was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that the appellant has taken away the cheque without information and he has also not received any money from the complainant. The complainant has misused the cheque. (e) Accordingly, learned trial Court on the basis of material and evidence on record dismissed the complaint. Learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint has recorded its finding in para 19 that the cheque was not given towards any debt or liability. It has also recorded its finding that the initially the accused has to prove that the cheque was given towards any liability, then only presumption will be drawn in favour of the complainant and it has to be rebutted by the accused. The learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that the complainant is unable to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 4 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in holding that the cheque was not given towards any liability, is perversity and contrary to the material on record. He would further submit that entire evidence adduced by the complainant would clearly demonstrate that the cheque has been given towards debt and the learned trial Court has committed mistake in shifting the burden on the complainant whereas presumption should have been drawn in favour of the complainant but the learned trial Court has committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the criminal complaint case and acquitted the accused. Thus he would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from the evidence and material on record it cannot be said that the cheque was given towards any liability and the learned trial Court in paragraph 19 and 21 has recorded its finding against the complainant which cannot be said to suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the acquittal appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the submissions made by the parties and evidence on record, it is quite vivid that it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the cheque was given towards any liability. The complainant in his evidence has clearly admitted that he has 3.5 aces of land and out of which he can produce 87.5 quintals of paddy which does not inspire confidence. In the complaint, the complainant has taken a stand that he has sold 583 quintals of paddy but no material has been brought on record to demonstrate this fact. As such, it cannot be said that the cheque was given towards any debt or liability. Thus, the finding recorded by the 5 learned trial Court that the cheque was not given towards any debt or liability, is legal and justified which does not warrant any interference by this Court. So far as other grounds for dismissal of the complaint is concerned, the signature does not tally with the cheque and the finding recorded by learned trial Court is legal and justified for dismissal of the complaint as in the cheque forwarding memo the endorsement it has been mentioned that the drawer’s signature differs. Thus, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the cheque has been signed by the accused by examining the handwriting expert,. but no such steps have been taken. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the complaint should be dismissed on the count of signature differs, cannot be said to suffer from perversity or illegality. 7. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.04.15 14:24:57 +0530