2025:CGHC:16564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.81 of 2025 Vinay Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri B.S. Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Street No. 4, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Appellant versus Shubham Gupta S/o Shri Rajendra Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Amapara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Near Dukan Chameli Chowk, Beside House Of Mahendra Pandit, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Accused)

... Respondent For Appellant : Shri BL Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

08.04.2025 Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya

2025.04.11

11:48:40 +0530 Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (for short ‘the Act of 2023) has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Complaint Case No.2010/2022 whereby, learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’).

2. As per the complaint, out of personal terms, the Respondent/ accused has taken loan from the Appellant/Complainant and for repayment of the same, he has issued a cheque dated 01.07.2022 (Ex.P-1) to him amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex.P-6) was sent to the Respondent/accused but even then, payment was not made, therefore, a complaint case has been filed against him.

3. Learned trial Court has, after evaluating the evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, this Appeal has been filed.

4. Shri Sahu submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective and there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and prays to allow the Appeal.

5. On the contrary, Ms. Sharma supports the judgment impugned and submits that presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable and the Respondent/accused has successfully proved the non-existence of consideration by raising probable defence, therefore, the trial Court has been sagacious in acquitting him and prays to dismiss the Appeal.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care.

7. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law.

8. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of th