Chattisgarh High Court
Kailash Kirana Store Sakti vs Lakhanlal Chauhan on 19 March, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 5
2025:CGHC:12969
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 712 of 2024
1 - Kailash Kirana Store Sakti Proprietor Bholaram Agarwal, S/o Late
Kailash Agarwal, Aged 32-Year, R/o Ward No. 4 Sakt, Tehsil Sakti,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Lakhanlal Chauhan S/o Bhondu Chauhan Aged About 52 Years R/o
Village - Tohiladihi, Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Prashant Dadsena on behalf of Shri Hari
Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondent : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgment on Board
KISHORE 19.03.2025
KUMAR
DESHMUKH
1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 27.03.2021 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Criminal
Case No. 404/2019, 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
complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
before the JMFC, Sakti alleging that the accused has taken Rs.
2,00,000/- as loan towards purchase of food grains from his
shop. The accused had given the Cheque No. 006327 dated
02.02.2019 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn at the United Bank
of India pertaining to bank account No. 2002010107037
maintained by him. The accused has assured the complainant
that he will pay the amount by the end of December, 2018, if he
fails to pay, then the complainant can encash the cheque given
by him. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused
failed to pay the amount till December, 2018, thereore, he
deposited the said cheque to his bank account maintained in the
Punjab National Bank on 02.02.2019, but the cheque got
dishonouredon 04.02.2019 and returned with endorsement
dishonoured due to insufficient fund. The complainant through
his counsel sent legal demand notice on 15.02.2019 still the
accused has not paid the amount, which has necessitated the
complainant to file complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 which was registered as Criminal Case
No. 404/2019.
3. Learned trial Court taking cognizance of the complaint,
summoned the accused. Pursuant to the said summon the
accused entered appearance before the trial Court. During the
trial the complainant examined himself as P.W./1 and exhibited
documents namely bounced cheque (Ex.P/1), Forwarding Memo
(Ex.P/2), Demand Notice (Ex.P/3), Postal Receipt (Ex.P/4) and
Acknowledgment (Ex.P/5). The accused has examined himself
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and other witnesses namely
Gulabchand Agrawal (D.W./1) and Bhagirathi Patel, Head
Cashier of the Bank (D.W./2).
4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and materials
placed on record, vide impugned order dated 27.03.2021
dismissed the complaint by recording its finding that the
complainant has not produced any documents pertaining to
transaction between them, therefore, 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 with the dismissal of the complaint, complainant has
filed the present Acquittal Appeal.
5. 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 on the count as
complainant has categorically in his evidence has demonstrated
that the cheque was given by the accused towards liability, as
such the finding is perverse and liable to be set aside by this
Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
payment was required to be made to the defence witness
Gulabchandra Agrawal who has categorically stated that
accused has given two cheques one Lakh each on 07.01.2017
and 4.3.2017 whereas in the present case cheque pertains to
year 2019 as such there is no nexus between the transaction
with the complainant and witness Gulabchandra Agrawal. Even
otherwise, the complainant is unable to prove that the payment
was made towards any liability. 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 should not interfere in the findings, therefore,
would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. During the course of evidence the complainant in his cross-
examination has admitted that the accused has given the cheque to
him in December, 2017 and he has also admitted that blank cheque
was given to him and contents of the cheque was not written in the
handwriting of the complainant except his signature. The complainant
has not placed any record to demonstrate that the cheque was given
towards any liablity. The complainant has produced Ledger Account
and state of his bank account wherein transaction has been shown to
be made in the year 2017 whereas the cheque was dishnoured in
2019, which creates doubts that the cheque was given towards any
debt and liability.
9. Considering this aspect of the matter 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 favour of the complainant 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 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 and it is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Deshmukh
