1 CGHC010043802020 2026:CGHC:34163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 210 of 2020 Soni Vindo Kumar S/o Janki Lalji Aged About 48 Years R/o Uphar Jewellers Manav Mandir Chowk Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Ashish Patel And Another S/o Ashok Patel R/o Princess Palace, Behind Mansukh Lal Petrol Pump, G.E. Road, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO Police Station Kotwali District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No.1, as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2/State. 2. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/accused has been allowed and acquitted the respondent RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 No.1 from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act), and set aside the order of conviction dated 25.04.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Complaint Case No. 2868/2016. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant/complainant has preferred a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent No.1/accused and the cheque in question is dated 24/05/2016 and the cheque No. is 858881 of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said cheque was provided by the respondent No.1 to the applicant which was produced by the applicant to ICICI Bank, Rajnandgaon but the same was dishonored due to insufficient amount and thus the same was returned to the applicant as a dishonored and then the applicant has sent a legal notice to the respondent No.1, despite receiving the notice, the respondent No.1 has utterly failed to pay the cheque amount to the applicant. 4. As per the complaint case the respondent No.1 is the partner of colors group and doing the business of flat and allotted the said house to the public and one other partner of the said group Raksesh Lekhwani who is the proprietor of Sunil Footwear. The said colors group required money for their project and then the partner of the said group Rakesh Lekhwani has received total Rs. 7,00,000/- from the applicant for his business and out of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- by the applicant to the Rakesh lekhwani through cheque of Bank namely ICICI bank in the name of Sunil Footwear account and Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the applicant in cash to the Rakesh Lekhwani and the respondent No.1 and Rakesh lekhwani are partner of colors groups who have given 3 assurance to the applicant to return the said amount within 5-6 months. The applicant has demanded the said amount from Rakesh lekhwani, who is the partner of colors groups and being a partner respondent No.1 has issued 7 cheques in the month of March, 2016 which amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- each and the cheque was issued in the bank of Andhra Bank, Branch – Rajnandgaon and the said cheques were asked to be produced by the applicant to the bank but the respondent No.1 has requested not to produced the said cheque at present and it was asked to produce in the last week of month of June, 2016 and for other cheque also the respondent No.1 has requested to extend the time. 5. According to the time provided by the respondent No.1 the cheque in question amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- was produced on 24/05/2016 but the said bank has returned the said cheque on 14.07.2016 mentioning the reason that there is insufficient fund in the account of respondent No.1 and thus the cheque in question got dishonored. The applicant has issued the legal notice to the respondent No.1 within time and the same was received even then, the respondent No.1 has failed to make the payment to the applicant. Thereafter the applicant has filed complaint case before the learned trial Court where the charges were framed under Section 138 of the NI Act which was denied by the respondent No.1 and in the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent has claimed that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 6. At the fag end of the trial, and after hearing respective side learned trial Court in complaint case No.2868/2016 and after going through the 4 evidence on the respective parties and the document of the record, convicted the respondent No.1 for simple imprisonment of 6 months and in the form of compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded in the favour of applicant failing which 3 months additional simple imprisonment was also awarded. The respondent No.1 has preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 66/2019 and on dated 16.10.2019, the learned appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 and set aside the order of conviction passed by learned trial Court. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law deserves to be set-aside. It is further submitted that the learned appellate Court has completely overlooked this fact that the cheque in question where in the signature was admitted by the respondent/accused and thus, under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act, it can be legally presumed that the respondent No.1/accused was responsible to returned the said amount and he is liable to be penalized as per Section 138 of the NI Act. It is further submitted that the learned appellate Court has completely failed to see that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act is completely made out against the respondent No.1 because, the respondent No.1 has never denied the said cheque and the questioned cheque is issued to the applicant and he has not explained that under what circumstances, the said cheque was in possession of the applicant. It is also contended that the learned appellate Court has failed to see that as to why the respondent No.1/accused issued the 5 cheque in question to the applicant and why the respondent No.1 has not made any complain to the Police or other authority to challenge the illegality of the applicant if any and why he was keep mum after knowing this fact that the proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act is initiated against him. Thus, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1/accused has been allowed and acquitted the respondent No.1 from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act), and set aside the order of conviction dated 25.04.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Complaint Case No. 2868/2016, and he further submits that the respondent No.1 has rightly been acquitted and there is no illegality while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1 also opposed the prayer contained in the instant criminal revision, and endorsed the submissions raised by the learned State counsel. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the learned appellate Court has observed that the complaint does not contain the necessary averments as contemplated under Section 141 of the NI Act to fasten vicarious liability upon respondent No.1 by demonstrating that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the relevant point of time. It has further been found that the alleged amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was neither advanced to the firm nor credited to its account, but was allegedly transferred to the bank account of the private concern of Rakesh Lekhwani, namely Sunil Foot Wear, and partly paid to him in cash. The appellate Court has also taken note of the fact that the statutory demand notice was not served upon respondent No.1 and that no cogent evidence was adduced by the complainant to establish that the cheque in question had been issued by respondent No.1 towards discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or liability owed to the complainant. In these circumstances, the learned appellate Court rightly concluded that the complainant had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and, therefore, rightly set aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court in Complaint Case No.2868/2016 and acquitted respondent No.1 from the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity of illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court, warranting interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7 13. A copy of this order be as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar