Chattisgarh High Court
S.K. Jain vs S. Suresh Kumar Naidu on 24 January, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 5
2025:CGHC:4450
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 719 of 2024
1 - S.K. Jain S/o Sonpal Jain Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Shop
No. 307, Zonal Market Sector -10, Bhilai, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh. ........(Complainant)
... Appellant
versus
1 - S. Suresh Kumar Naidu S/o S. Ishwarsao Naidu Aged About 38
Years Resident Of Balk No. 13, Q. No. 14, Street No. 15 B, Sector -2,
Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...........(Assused)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Rishi Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 24.01.2025
1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digitally signed by Durg, District Durg dated 10.04.2024, in Complaint Case RCC KISHORE KISHORE KUMAR KUMAR DESHMUKH DESHMUKH Date:
2025.02.21 10:53:04 +0530 No. 4535/2014, whereby the respondents/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that, the appellant Page 2 of 5 and respondent are well acquainted to each other and due to previous relationship, the respondent has asked for payment of amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant on account of domestic need and the appellant has given the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. The respondent has given him chqeue valuing Rs. 50,000/- for repayment of the said amount. The said cheque was deposited by the appellant before the Bank for disbursement of amount, but the same got dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the Bank account of respondent. The appellant through his counsel sent legal demand notice on 21.01.2014 which was returned as not claimed by the accused which has necessitated the complainant to filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 0004535/2014.
3. During the trial the appellant examined himself by way of affidavit under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. reiterating the contentions raised in the complaint. The complainant to prove his case has exhibited cheque as exhibit P/1, Cheque depositing slip as Exhibit P/2, forwarding memo of the bank Exhibit P/3, memo of the bank as Exhibit P/4, Notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act given to accused as Exhibit P/5 alongwith postal receipt, Envelope Exhibit P/6 which has been returned with endorsement "not claimed", Account opening form Exhibit P/7, Cheque Book issue Registered Exhibit P/8, Cheque Return Outward Record P/9, Statement of Account Exhibit P/10. The complainant was cross-examined by the accused wherein he has admitted that he Page 3 of 5 is not aware how much amount he has given on loan to the accused. The appellant has also admitted that whenever the accused has taken money he has given cheque. He has also admitted that he has filed four cases of the N.I. Act against the accused. He has also admitted that he has not produced document regarding entry of the amount paid to the accused. He has admitted that he has not obtained license for money lending and he used to give money only on good relationship. He has also stated that he is income tax payee, however, he has not produced income tax return. He has stated that he has given money on 20.04.2013 to the respondent on the assurance that he will return the money within a month, however, he has not filed any document in this regard.
4. The complainant has also examined Mukund Bhobe (P.W. No. 2) who is the Manager of the Bank and exhibited cheque, Deposit Slip, Return Memo, Cheque Book Issue Register, Cheque Return Register and statement of Bank Account. The accused has examined himself under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and denied the allegation made against him and stated that he has given cheque towards security which been utilised by the complainant.
5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.04.2024 dismissed the complaint by recording the finding that the complainant is unable to prove that the cheque amount has been given on account of legal liability and accordingly it has dismissed the same. Being aggrieved, complainant has filed the Page 4 of 5 present Acquittal Appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the complainant is unable to prove that the cheque has been given in view of the liability, is perverse and contrary to the evidence, therefore, committed illegality and irregularity which warrant interference by this Court and would pray for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that learned trial Court has rightly recorded its finding that the cheque was not issued by him for discharge of any legal liability. He would further submit that the burden of prove lies with the appellant which he utterly failed to discharge as no material was placed on record to substantiate that cheque was towards debt or liability by the accused. He would further submit even otherwise, when two views are possible and if one view which is favourable to the accused is taken by the trial Court the appellate Court normally not interfered in the findings, therefore, would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Considering the entire evidence and materials on record which clearly demonstrate that the complainant is unable to establish that the cheque was given towards any debt or liability which he has to discharge then only the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act can be drawn in his favour which he has not proved by placing cogent material and evidence, as such I am of the view that the trial Court's finding does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. And also Page 5 of 5 considering the well settled position of law that if one view is taken by the trial Court which is more favourable to the accused then the trial Court could not normally disturbed or interfered, considering this aspect of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed accordingly it is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Sd-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh