Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Bhupinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Vinod Ranta – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 197 of 2016
Decided on : 16-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Appeal against acquittal - Scope - Interference only if findings perverse i.e. ignoring relevant material, against weight of evidence, irrational, based on no or unreliable evidence - Double presumption of innocence post acquittal - Reluctance where two views possible, trial court advantage in witness credibility. (Paras 21-25)
Facts of the case:
Complainant and accused jointly executed contract work, cordial relations - Accused issued cheque towards alleged share of Rs.8,50,000/-, presented and dishonoured - Notice served, no payment - Complaint filed - Defence: security cheque, prior payments proved by bank statements.
Findings of Court:
Acquittal judgment not perverse, evidence rightly appreciated including admitted payments.
Issues: Whether trial Court erred in treating prior payments as towards cheque liability rebutting presumption and in concluding cheque as security; whether findings perverse warranting appellate interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Trial Court correctly considered defence evidence of payments via bank records, complainant admissions, complaint omissions - No perversity, appellate Court not to substitute view if reasonable conclusion possible.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant :Mr. Kunal Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Sanjay Ranta and Mr. Abhinav Kainthla, Advocates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonoured; complaint filed under section 138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court erred in treating payments as part discharge. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. prior payments admitted, rebutting section 138 presumption. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. trial court accepted defence rebuttal of presumption. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. appellate interference only if findings perverse. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. payments unrelated to cheque liability; security cheque defence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. no perversity; acquittal upheld, appeal dismissed. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
Judgment :
Virender Singh, J.
Appellant-Bhupinder Singh has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’), against the judgment dated 5.8.2015, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), in Complaint No. 66-3 of 2013, titled as, ‘Bhupinder Singh versus Vinod Ranta’.
2. Vide judgment dated 5.8.2015, the learned trial Court has acquitted respondent/accused Vinod Ranta, from the offences, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
N.I. Act’).
3 For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Brief facts leading to filing the present appeal, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under:
4.1 Complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against accused Vinod Ranta on the ground that complainant and accused had obtained a contract together and they were having cordial and friendly relations with each other. In lieu of the aforesaid contact, accused had to pay a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- to the complainant and in order to make repayment of the said amount, he has issued a cheque bearing No. 469190, for a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/-, out of the bank account, maintained by him, with UCO Branch, Chopal, on 30.6.2013, with the assurance that as and when, the cheque will be presented, the same will be encashed. Consequently, the complainant presented the cheque to the UCO Bank, Chopal. However, the said cheque was received back dishonoured, on 23.9.2023 with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, legal notice was got issued by the complainant, through his counsel on 18.10.2013, demanding the amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt thereof. As such, notice is stated to have been served and despite service of notice, accused has not cared to make the payment. As such, complainant, after waiting for the statutory period, has filed the complaint, before the learned trial Court.
5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of documents, so annexed, as well as, from the preliminary evidence, issued noticed to the accused, vide order dated 20.11.2013, after securing his presence.
6. Notice of accusation was put to the accused, vide order dated 19.7.2014, to which, the accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the complainant, as well as, the accused were directed to adduce evidence.
7. After closure of evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., vide order dated 24.9.2014. Thereafter, accused has examined his defence witnesses. After closure of the defence evidence, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court, has dismissed the complaint, vide judgment of acquittal, dated 5.8.2015.
8. Against the dismissal of the complaint, the present appeal has been filed, before this Court, assailing the judgment of acquittal, on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant, fulfilled all the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, whereas, the learned trial Court has erred in concluding that the amount, so paid by the accused, was
