1 2026:CGHC:747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 692 of 2019 Mohan Marketing Through Proprietor Ghanshyam Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Mohan Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Daldal Sivni Road Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/complainant versus Shanker Lal Wadhwani S/o. Mohan Lal Wadhwani, R/o. Maruti Electricals, Link Road Camp-2, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent / accused person {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Lonia, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/01/2026 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant / complainant challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2016 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 135 /2015 whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 723 / 2013 has been set aside. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that appellant / complainant -Ghanshyam Agrawal filed complaint case under Section 138 of The Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth, “NI Act, 1881”) alleging therein that he is Proprietor of Mohan Marketing, Raipur and he used to sell product of ci.e. H.V.F., C.F.L. and Usha Lexes C.F.L.. Respondent/accused has purchased said articles worth Rs.1,07,156/- and to re-pay the said amount, he had given him impugned cheque (Annexure P-3) dated 07.12.2012 of ICICI Bank, Bhilai Branch, which was deposited by him in his Bank, but the same was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Legal notice was served to the respondent / accused in this regard, despite that cheque amount was not given by him, therefore, appellant/complainant filed complaint case before concerned Judicial Magistrate. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate tried the case, recorded evidence adduced by the parties. Statement of respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence claiming himself to be innocent & false implication. Defence was taken by the respondent/accused that said cheque was not given by him to the complainant, rather it was given to Ravi Kumar Patnaik, Area Manager of Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited as security. Respondent/accused has examined two witnesses i.e. Pushpraj Saloman in his defence. 4. Learned trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, vide its judgment dated 21.07.2015 convicted and sentenced the respondent. Against which, respondent/accused preferred criminal appeal before the Court of Sessions. 5. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur vide its impugned judgment dated 07.05.2016, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of 3 sentence passed by learned trial Magistrate by acquitting the respondent/accused of the alleged charge. 6. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, appellant/ complainant has preferred instant appeal questioning the same. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that respondent / accused purchased electrical items from the firm of appellant- complainant on credit and to re-pay the credit amount, he had given impugned cheque (Annexure P-3). She further submits that signature of respondent/accused on the impugned cheque (Annexure A-3) is not disputed, despite that learned appellate Court has set aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Magistrate dehoring the presumption as provided in Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881, which is perverse to the evidence and the law, hence, he prays that the this appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment may be set aside by restoring the judgment passed by the trial Magistrate. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/accused would submit that respondent/accused has proved by adducing cogent evidence that impugned cheque was given by him to Ravi Kumar Patnaik (DW-2), who was Area Manager of Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited, as respondent/accused used to purchase electrical articles from aforesaid firm on credit, therefore, on being demand, he had given the said impugned cheque as security in favour of Usha Shriram Enterprises, which has been proved by oral & documentary evidence by respondent / accused, relying on the same, learned appellate Court has set aside the judgment passed by trial Magistrate, which is well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. 4 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the both the courts below with utmost circumspection. 10. As per deposition of complainant – Ghanshyam Agrawal (CW-1), respondent/accused purchased electrical items from the firm namely, ‘Mohan Marketing’ on credit and to re-pya the credit amount, he had issued impugned cheque, but it has not been stated by him in his deposition that, as to when, said electrical items were purchased by the respondent/accused from his firm on credit. 11. Defence has been taken by respondent/accused right from cross- examination of the complainant that impugned cheque was given by him to Ravi Kumar Patnaik (DW-2), who was posted as Area Manager of Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited, as security, as he (Respondent/accused) was working as Dealer with the said Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited. 12. Aforesaid fact has not only been stated by respondent /accused – Shankarlal Wadhwani in his defence evidence, it has also been supported by Ravi Kumar Patnaik (DW-2) and Pushpraj Saloman (DW-1), repeat number, who was posted as Sales Manager in Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited. 13. Complainant Ghanshyam Agrawal has shown his ignorance in suggestion taken by learned defence counsel in his cross-examination that impugned cheque (Annexure P-3) was given by respondent/accused to Ravi Patanaik (DW-2) as security against the goods purchased from his firm. Though, he has denied the suggestion that impugned cheque was given to 5 him by Ravi Patnaik (DW-2), but he has not rebutted the fact that impugned cheque was given by respondent/accused to Ravi Patnaik (DW-2) as security against the goods purchased from Usha Shriram Enterprises Private Limited, whereas, this fact has not only proved by appellant/complainant and Pushpraj Soloman (DW-1), who was Sales Manager of Usha Shriram Enterprises Limited but by Ravi Kumar Patnaik (DW-2), who was Area Manager of said Usha Shriram Enterprises. 14. Thus, since it has not been proved that impugned cheque was given by respondent/accused to the complainant for discharge of any legally enforceable debt, hence, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, hence, the same is hereby affirmed. 15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.09 10:47:55 +0530