1 CGHC010349312021 2026:CGHC:42616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR THE DATE WHEN THE CASE IS RESERVED THE DATE WHEN THE Order IS PRONOUNCED THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE Operative Full 24.09.2026 30.09.2026 **** 01.10.2026 CRR No. 976 of 2021 • Gopi Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri D.S. Sahu, aged about 42 Years, R/o Sarvoday Nagar, Pachpedhi, Naka, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant/Complainant versus 1. Smt. Shobhna Valde, W/o Shri Madhukar Valde, aged about 50 Years, Assistant Grade-03, Office Swatantrata Sangram Senani and Choice Branch District Officer Raipur, Chahttisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents/Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Shashikesh Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.2/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) C A V Judgment 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant/complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.10.01 14:09:17 +0530 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.24/2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Case No. 935/2015, has been dismissed and the order of acquittal passed in favour of non-applicant No.1/accused has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant/complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1881”), alleging that non-applicant No.1/accused was known to him for a long period and, owing to their close acquaintance, she borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 02.06.2014 for meeting her domestic requirements. It was alleged that the accused/non-applicant No.1 assured the complainant that the said amount would be repaid by 21.01.2015 and, towards repayment of the alleged legally enforceable debt, issued cheque bearing No.113426 dated 21.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Collectorate Branch, Raipur. According to the applicant/complainant, the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment, however, the same was dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice to the accused, but despite service of notice, payment was not made. Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed on 23.02.2015 and the case was registered on 06.05.2015. 3 3. The learned Trial Court framed the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent/non-applicant No.1 on 13.01.2016. The respondent/non-applicant No.1 abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. During the course of the trial, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited ten documents, marked as Exs. P-1 to P-10. In her defence, respondent/non-applicant No.1 examined herself as DW-1 and her husband, Madhukar Valde, as DW-2. 5. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted respondent No.1/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide judgment dated 26.12.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.24/2020 before the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), which, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 25.11.2021 and affirmed the order of acquittal. Thus, both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings of acquittal in favour of respondent No.1/accused. Hence, the present revision petition by the applicant/complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant would submit that the respondent/non-applicant No.1 has neither disputed the issuance of cheque (Ex.P-1) in favour of the complainant nor her signature thereon. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, operates in favour of the applicant/complainant to the effect that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. He would further submit that the applicant/complainant has duly proved that the respondent No.1 had 4 borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for her domestic requirements and that the cheque in question was issued towards repayment of the said loan amount. It is contended that the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant/complainant and have erred in law in acquitting the respondent/non-applicant No.1. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the revision be allowed, the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts be set aside and the respondent/non-applicant No.1 be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/non-applicant No.1 would submit that both the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of acquittal after properly appreciating the evidence available on record, and the same do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. He would further submit that the applicant/complainant is practising as an Advocate in the District Court, Raipur, and is engaged in money lending without any certificate or registration, as observed by the learned trial Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment. It is also contended that the complainant’s version suffers from material contradictions with regard to the exact amount of loan advanced to the respondent. Although the complainant stated in his deposition that he had paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque, but such particulars were not mentioned in the complaint or in the statutory notice (Ex.P-5). Further, the amount mentioned in the agreement (Ex.P-10) is Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the complainant has alleged advancement of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant has failed to establish the alleged 5 legally enforceable debt and that both the learned Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded the order of acquittal. Hence, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State has duly assisted the Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 10. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question (Ex.P-1) bears the signature of the respondent/non-applicant No.1. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arises in favour of the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable, and the accused/non-applicant No.1 can rebut the same by raising a probable defence on the basis of the material available on record. 11. In the present case, the applicant/complainant has alleged that he advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.1. However, there are material contradictions in his own evidence regarding the said transaction. In the complaint, the applicant/complainant stated that the entire loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was given in cash on 02.06.2014. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that Rs.1,00,000/- was given in cash on 02.06.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- was given through cheque on 10.06.2014. Thus, his statement regarding the amount, mode and dates of payment is not consistent, which creates doubt regarding the alleged transaction. 12. Apart from this, there is also a material difference between the complaint and the alleged agreement (Ex.P-10). The complaint is based on a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas the agreement (Ex.P-10) mentions the amount as Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, according to the complainant, the 6 amount was to be repaid by 21.01.2015, whereas the agreement mentions 30.06.2015 as the date of repayment. The complainant has stated that these differences were only typing mistakes. However, no steps were taken by him to get the said mistakes corrected. Therefore, the explanation offered by the complainant does not satisfactorily explain these material discrepancies. 13. It is also important to note that the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash has not been mentioned either in the complaint or in the statutory notice (Ex.P-5). No documentary evidence has been produced to prove the said payment. Further, the witnesses to the agreement (Ex.P-10) have not been examined by the complainant to prove the said transaction. Moreover, it is also evident from the cross-examination of the complainant that transactions amounting to approximately Rs.16,50,000/- had taken place between him and respondent No.1 on different occasions. This statement indicates that the complainant/applicant was engaged in the business of money lending without registration or licence. However, the complainant/applicant could not state the specific dates, amounts, or other particulars of the said transactions. 14. Apart from this, respondent No.1, while examining herself as DW-1, stated that she had taken loans from the complainant on three occasions, namely, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter Rs.50,000/-. She further stated that the complainant had obtained four blank cheques from her and that, despite repayment of some amount, the complainant misused those cheques by presenting them for encashment. In view of the material contradictions in the complainant’s 7 own evidence, the defence taken by respondent No.1 cannot be outrightly discarded. 15. Besides above, there is also a serious discrepancy regarding the presentation and dishonour of the cheque in question. According to the complainant, the cheque (Ex.P-1) was issued by respondent No.1 from her account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Collectorate Branch, Raipur. The applicant/complainant further stated that he deposited the said cheque for clearance in his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Collectorate Branch, Raipur. However, the deposit slips (Exs.P-2 and P-3) show that the cheque was deposited in Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, and not in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Collectorate Branch, Raipur. Further, the complainant has relied upon Ex.P-4 as the document showing dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, whereas Ex.P-4 has been issued by Axis Bank. Thus, there is a material discrepancy as to the bank in which the cheque was presented and the bank which issued the dishonour information. The complainant has not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding these discrepancies. He has also not examined any officer of the concerned banks to explain the entries appearing in the deposit slips or the issuance of Ex.P-4. 16. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the manner in which the cheque in question was allegedly presented and dishonoured is itself doubtful. The discrepancies noticed hereinabove, coupled with the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the complainant and the non-examination of the concerned bank officials, create serious doubt regarding the alleged dishonour of Ex.P-1. In these 8 circumstances, the case putforth by the complainant does not appear to be a case of dishonour of the cheque, rather, the manner in which the complaint has been drafted and the documents relied upon therein raise serious doubt regarding the correctness and genuineness of the complainant’s version and render the complaint wholly misconceived and unsupported by the documentary evidence on record. 17. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, found that the applicant/complainant failed to establish the alleged loan transaction of Rs.3,00,000/- and the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The learned Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, affirmed the said finding. Thus, there are concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by both the learned Courts. Having considered the evidence on record and the material contradictions and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court do not call for interference. 18. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against an order of acquittal is limited. Interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or have resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, no such perversity or illegality has been demonstrated. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.24/2020, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 9 26.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Case No.935/2015, is hereby affirmed. 20. Consequently, the criminal revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh