Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Vishal Builders vs M/S Fibro Blast Doors Pvt. Ltd on 16 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed 2025:CGHC:17529
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2870 of 2024
M/s Vishal Builders, through its Partner, Vishal Gawri, S/o Nemichand Gawri, A/o 45 Years,
R/o Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
1 - M/s Fibro Blast Doors Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Lakshmikant Vishnudasji Karwa,
S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre, Chainsukh Road, Latur, District Latur,
(M.H.)
2 - Laxmikant Vishnudas Karwa, S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre,
Chainsukh Road, Latur, District Latur, (M.H.)
3 - Yogesh Vishnudas Karwa, S/o Vishnudas Karwa, R/o Karwa Business Centre, Chainsukh
Road, Latur, District Latur, (M.H.)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, on behalf of Mr. Anish
Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
16/04/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for exemption from
filing typed copies.
2. Upon due consideration, the application (I.A. No. 01/2024) stands allowed
and the appellant is exempted to file typed copies of page No. 33 & 36.
3. Also Heard on I.A. No. 02/2024, which is an application for condonation
of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Upon due consideration and considering the reasons assigned therein the
application (I.A. No. 02/2024) stands allowed the delay of 10 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
5. Appellant has filed an application under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of special leave to appeal against
the judgment of acquittal dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal
Complaint Case No. 5300/2018 whereby, respondent/accused was
acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (henceforth "the Act, 1881").
6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant has filed a
complaint case on 29.09.2018, thereafter the offence of particulars was
prepared on 15.11.2022 and the case was listed for the hearing and the
date of first hearing was on 04.01.2023. Learned counsel for the appellant
during his submission has shown the certified copy of the order sheet of
the trial Court and would submit that the trial Court has closed the
evidence on 11.06.2024, though the complainant has not examined any
complainant evidence and by the impugned judgment, the
respondent/accused has been acquitted only on the ground of want of the
evidence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sufficient
opportunity has not been granted by the trial Court to lead evidence. He
would further submit that the respondent/accused has not disputed the
issuance of the cheque, so there is a legal presumption against him, so the
finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is perverse and the trial
Court has wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges. He
would further submit that for the ends of justice the matter may be
remitted back to decide the same on merits.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the
documents annexed with petition and also the copy of the order-sheet
which has been placed during the submission and the counsel is also
directed to file the same during the course of the day before the Registry.
9. Having gone through the order-sheet of the trial Court it reveals that
though the trial Court has given a warning on 08.01.2024 and also
imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter the case was listed for
complainant evidence on 26.02.2024 on such day, the complainant has
filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to
lead the secondary evidence, which was allowed on 09.04.2024 and again
the case was listed for the complainant evidence on 11.06.2024 on such
day, the complainant has not adduced any evidence and an application has
been filed by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was out
of station for some business related work. So, the grounds taken in the
memo that no sufficient opportunity has not been extended to the
complainant/appellant is not found correct. Further, when the
complainant/appellant himself was so negligent and not bothered for his
case and also not taken appropriate steps to advance the case, particularly
when the accused had appeared and the counsel for the accused was
regularly appearing on his behalf. Also considering for the summons trial,
to meet out such exigencies, Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. has been enacted
to safeguard the interest of the accused.
10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has
rightly closed the evidence after availing sufficient opportunity to the
complainant and for want of evidence the respondent/accused has been
acquitted, as such the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and this
Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding.
11. Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of leave and the same is refused,
in consequence, instant Cr.M.P is bereft of any substance and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
U. K. Raju
