1 CGHC010336042019 2026:CGHC:34164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1223 of 2019 Sandeep Agrawal S/o Niranjan Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Shivrinarayan, Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dilram Jangde S/o Sukram Jangde Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Amlidiha, Police Station- Bhilaigarh, District- Baloda-Bazar Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. 2. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been allowed and acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act), and set aside the order of conviction dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Complaint Case No. 447/2015. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant is the owner of Sandeep Eicher who is indulged in the sale and service of Tractor at Village- Ghatmadwa. The accused has purchased a tractor from the complainant and in lieu of the payment a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- was given by the accused bearing cheque No.414157 of State Bank of India, Shivrinarayan. When the complainant presented the cheque, the same got dishonored. When the complainant received the information, the complainant immediately sent the legal notice as per the provision of NI Act, but after receipt of notice when the accused has not paid the cheque amount, the complainant filed a complaint Under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Thereafter, on the basis of evidence available on record, the trial court vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2018 has convicted the accused. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2018, the accused preferred the appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide its judgment of acquittal dated 05.08.2019 allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused from the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, this application. 5. 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 appellate Court has adopted hyper technical view in passing the judgment of acquittal of the accused by setting aside the 3 judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellate Court has not adhere to the provision of the NI Act, 1881, and failed to see that as per Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act, 1881, the accused has not discharged his burden of prove. Thus, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been allowed and acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act), and set aside the order of conviction dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Complaint Case No. 447/2015, and he further submits that the respondent 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the learned appellate Court has observed that evidence of the complainant itself discloses that he neither specified the date of sale nor the date of delivery of the tractor 4 and admitted that, according to him, only a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- was allegedly due from the respondent, yet he had obtained three cheques of Rs.3,00,000/- each without furnishing any plausible explanation. The complainant further admitted that the disputed cheque had been obtained as security towards the alleged outstanding amount. It has also been noticed that the complainant neither pleaded nor proved the material facts relating to the alleged transaction, including the exchange of the old tractor, sale of the new tractor and the finance allegedly arranged in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, being the amount covered by the disputed cheque, remained unproved. The learned Appellate Court has further rightly held that the complainant failed to establish his status as the "payee" or the "holder of the cheque" and had suppressed material facts while instituting the complaint. Apart from the above, the statutory demand notice issued by the complainant required payment within one week instead of the statutory period of fifteen days as contemplated under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, thereby rendering the notice legally defective. 9. 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 22.12.2018 passed by the learned trial Court in Complaint Case No.447/2015 and acquitted respondent from the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity of illegality in the impugned judgment 5 passed by learned appellate Court, warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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