Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Nilima Gupta vs Vikash Ransingh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2025:CGHC:14220
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 31 of 2019
Smt. Nilima Gupta W/o Anil Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Baniya Para,
Before Raj Building Durg ,chowk ,dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.,
District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
Vikash Ransingh S/o Jagdish Rao Ransingh Aged About 49 Years R/o Maratha
Para, Infront Of Daji Marathi School ,dhamtari District Dhamtari ,chhattisgarh.,
District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bhkhatiyar, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
25/03/2025
1. The Complainant has filed this acquittal appeal against the order dated
01.10.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in Criminal
Case No. 192/2016 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has
dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and acquitted the respondent.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant's husband was working as
an Agent with the firm Archna Tractor and the accused was owner of the firm.
Digitally He has taken Rs. 5 lakh as loan from the complainant's husband and the said
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.01
16:23:21
+0530
loan account was given to the accused through its bank account maintained in
Canara Bank, Branch Dhamtari. The accused to discharge his liability has
given a cheque bearing No. 035704 dated 20.12.2015 for Rs. 5 lakhs of the
bank account maintained in the Canara Bank, Branch Dhamtari. The
complainant has deposited the said cheque which was dishonoured and
returned back to the complainant with an endorsement "cheque was
dishonoured due to insufficient fund" on 23.12.2015 and the said cheque
returning memo was received on 24.12.2015 by the complainant.
3. The appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent/accused through his
counsel on 19.01.2016 which has been received by the respondent on
21.01.2016 but he has neither paid amount to the complainant nor replied to
the said notice which has necessitated the complainant to file a complainant
under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. The complainant to substantiate his case has exhibited documents i.e. copy of
pass book Ex.P-1, statement of the account Ex.P-2, acknowledgment receipt
Ex.P-3, legal notice Ex.P-4, Cheque No. 035704 Ex.P-5, deposit slip Ex.P-6
and memo Ex.P-7.
5. The complainant has submitted affidavit under Section 145 of the NI Act. The
complainant was cross examined by the counsel for the accused wherein she
has submitted that her husband used to work as an Agent with Archana
Tractor and he was doing the sale of tractor. She has submitted that she is
income tax payee but she has not submitted income tax return of Financial
Years 2014, 2015 and 2016. She has admitted that in the statement of bank
account transaction has been mentioned. The accused did not examine any
witness in his support but he was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein
he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated
01.10.2018 after appreciating the bank account and transaction taken place in
the bank account and recorded its finding that it cannot be possible that due to
transaction and after withdrawal of the amount the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs
cannot be transmitted in the account of the accused as there was not enough
amount for transferring as such there is doubt with regard to actual transaction
of the money. It has also recorded its finding that even the accused is unable to
prove that he has taken any loan or debt from the complainant, as such
learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved with this
order, the complainant has preferred this acquittal appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the
trial court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. He would
further submit that the cheque was given wherein the accused has admitted its
signature and there was no rebuttal on the part of the accused regarding
transfer of money from the bank account of the complainant, therefore, the trial
Court has committed illegality in applying reverse burden of proof on the
complainant and would pray for allowing the appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
finding recorded by the trial Court is legal, justified which does not warrant
interference by this Court. He would further submit that no evidence was laid
by the complainant to prove that the cheque was given for any debt or liability
which is incumbent upon the complainant to first establish then only burden of
proof is shifted upon the accused and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Considering the fact that learned trial Court in its judgment has
extensively gone through the statement of bank account submitted by the
complainant herself and taken note of the fact that there were two entries
made in the bank account before 7.4.2014 and the opening balance was Rs.
2,20,868 thereafter two cheques Rs. 1,50,000/- each was deposited in the
bank account which enhanced the deposit in the bank to the tune of Rs. Rs.
520868/-thereafter on 07.04.2014 Rs. 1,50,000/- was withdrawn from the
account then Rs. 3,70,868/- was available in the account. Subsequently the
cheque was given on 18.04.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that Rs.
5,00,000/- fund transferred to Archan Tractor bearing cheque No. 875616 as
such there would be minus balance of Rs. 1,29,132/- thus the trial Court
recorded its finding that the manner in which transaction was done by the
complainant it creates doubt over genuineness of the bank transaction and
probably it is fictitious. It has also recorded its finding that no explanation was
given by the appellant in this regard before the trial court. The trial Court has
also recorded its finding that even the complainant has nowhere stated that
whether the payment was made to Archana Tractor Dhamtari or Durg. The trial
Court has also recorded its finding that no document relating to transaction of
huge amount has been placed on record thus the learned trial Court after
analyzing the fact, evidence, material on record has held that the accused was
unable to prove that the cheque was given towards debut or liability which is
paramount consideration for attracting Section 138 of the NI Act therefore, I am
of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer
from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court.
11.Accordingly, t the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
