Raj Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P.And Another.
2023 Latest Caselaw 358 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 678 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- Raj Kumar Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Ashish Saxena,Nripendra Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate, A.K. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Case called out. None is present on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Learned A.G.A. is present.

The present appeal along with Criminal Misc. Application under Section 378 (4) has been filed against the judgment and order date 28.6.2001 passed by the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in complaint case no. 1858 of 2000 (Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Shanno Devi) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

In the application, averment has been made that the respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the appellant dated 2.9.1996 which when presented by the appellant was dishonoured by the bankers of the respondent and the same was returned with the endorsement of "EXCEEDS ARRANGEMENTS". The next averment is that the appellant filed a criminal complaint case no. 1858/2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the trial court. The respondent was summoned by the learned trial court and thereafter, after leading the evidence, both oral as well as documentary by both the parties, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent with the findings that the offence of 138 N.I.Act has not been made out. It is further averred that the factum of issuance of said cheque, the signature of the respondent on the same and the dishonour of the cheque was not disputed by the respondent. Being aggrieved with the acquittal order, the present appeal along with application for leave has been preferred by the appellant.

I have reviewed and reconsidered the evidence upon which the order of acquittal has been passed by trial court. Learned trial court has proceeded with the presumption of innocence of the accused-respondent. With her acquittal this presumption of innocence stands fortified. No cogent reasons exist to interfere the judgment of trial court, which has to be considered from the point of view that, whether the view taken by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. When two views are possible, the High Court ought not interfere with the order of acquittal.

Keeping in view the aforesaid failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused, as noted by the trial court, I am of the considered view that the conclusion recorded by the trial court was probable and logical, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable, there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is warranted.

Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected and the application is dismissed.

Since prayer for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive and stands dismissed.

Lower court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.

Order Date :- 4.1.2023

Anuj Singh