Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak vs Vinod on 19 February, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8108
1 CRR-1166-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1166 of 2020
DEEPAK
Versus
VINOD
Appearance:
Shri Subodh Kathar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri M.K. Tripathi - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This revision is arising out of impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020
passed by Sessions Judge, Burhanpur District Burhanpur in Criminal Appeal
No.89/2019 whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of trial
Court dated 24.06.2019 and acquitted the respondent/accused from the
charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in the present case, a
cheque was issued to the present applicant of Rs.4,00,000/- by the
respondent towards repayment of a debt which was availed by the
respondent. The said cheque was dishonored which gave birth to a complaint
filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complaint was
ultimately tried and vide judgment dated 24.06.2019, the respondent was
convicted for the aforesaid offence. The judgment of conviction by the trial
Court was assailed by the respondent by filing an appeal and the Appellate
Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2020 has reversed the findings and has set-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8108
2 CRR-1166-2020
aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 24.06.2019 while holding that
there was failure on the part of the present applicant to prove the relation
with respondent.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the Appellate Court while
reversing the findings has taken into consideration the paragraph 10 of cross-
examination of the present applicant and as per the Court, the present
applicant admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the
respondent earlier, therefore, the Court concluded that as the respondent was
stranger to the applicant and Court held that it was highly improbable that the
applicant would lend a huge sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to a stranger. It is further
contended by the counsel that there was a typographical error in recording
the statement of the present applicant and there should not have any mark of
full stop (|) as the sentence "मैने वनोद को इससे पहले कभी नह ं दे खा ।" was in
continuation of previous sentence and there was no break between two
sentences. It is also contended by the counsel that various documents have
been brought on record by the present applicant along with
I.A.No.4236/2020 to demonstrate that previously uncle and aunt of the
respondent had also availed the loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/- from the father
of the present applicant and there were other documents to demonstrate that
respondent and present applicant were known to each other and respondent
for his personal need, had borrowed the aforesaid amount from the present
applicant. Therefore, counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid, the
impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contends
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8108
3 CRR-1166-2020
that while appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, the
Appellate Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
respondent/accused from the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Therefore, counsel prays that the present application deserves to be
dismissed.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by both the parties.
6. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
7. A perusal of record reflects that the Appellate Court has set-aside
the impugned judgment of the trial Court while taking into consideration the
paragraph 10 of cross-examination of the applicant/complainant. In
paragraph 10 of cross-examination, the present applicant stated as under:-
" यह बात सह है क इसके पूव मैने और भी कई लोगो को पैसे दये थे, जसम मेरा
राजीनामा हो गया है ा यह कहना गलत है क मै जन लोागो को पैसे दे ता हूॅ उस पर याज
लेता हूॅ। मैने वनोद को इससे पहले कभी नह ं दे खा। यह कहना गलत है क 0पी0 01 का
चेक मुझे आरोपी ारा नह ं दया गया था । यह कहना गलत है क 0पी0 1 का चेक मेरे ारा
भरा गया है । यह कहना गलत है क 0पी0 1 के चेक पर जो रािश दनांक और मेरा नाम
अं कत है और ए से ए भाग पर आरोपी के ह ता र म कोई अंतर नह ं है , वत: कहा क चेक
तैयार करके लाया था और मेरे सामने ह ता र कये थेे।यह कहना गलत है क आरोपी चेक
भरकर नह ं लाया था।"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph clearly reveals that the present
applicant expressed that he had not seen the respondent previously and this
aspect was appreciated by the Appellate Court while passing the impugned
judgment. It is evident to take into consideration the statement of the
respondent recorded under Section 364 of Cr.P.C. and in the said statement,
it was stated by the respondent in response to question No.8 that the evidence
was adduced against the respondent to extort money from him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8108
4 CRR-1166-2020
9. The Appellate Court while dealing with the testimony of present
applicant came to a conclusion that it was highly improbable to give a huge
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as loan to a stranger even in absence of any surety
and has proceeded to set aside the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment
of the the Appellate Court since has been passed in due appreciation of the
evidence particularly paragraph 10 of cross-examination of the present
applicant/complainant, thus requires no interference.
10. The present applicant did not take any objection regarding alleged
typographical error in cross-examination before the trial Court or even before
the Appellate Court.
11. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the Appellate
Court did not commit any error in acquitting the respondent/accused from
the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The judgment of
acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charge does not require
any interference. Hence, no interference with the impugned judgment dated
08.01.2020 passed by the Appellate Court, Burhanpur District Burhanpur is
warranted.
11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision petition stands
dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
