NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 29.02.2024 Order delivered on : 26.04.2024 ACQA No. 276 of 2017  Amit Singh, S/o R.B. Singh, aged 38 years, R/o A – 21, Walfort Enclave, Behind Ramkrishna Hospital, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.).

---- Appellant/Complainant Versus  Vishal Jain, S/o Mahendra Kumar Jain, aged 37 years, R/o Shop No. 07, Arham Handloom, Textile Market, Pandri Cloth market, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent : None Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Order

1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant herein against the judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 100/2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein from the charge punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that accused/respondent and appellant/complainant were having cordial relationship and due to this cordial relationship, accused/respondent demanded Rs.25,00,000/- on credit. Firstly, the appellant/complainant refused to give, however on the assurance of quick repayment and repeated request of accused/respondent, he gave him Rs.25,00,000/- in cash. After passage of some months, upon demand made by complainant/appellant to return the money, the accused/respondent gave him a cheque bearing No.150360 amount to Rs.25,00,000/- dated 08.10.2011 drawn on Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Raipur. The complainant/appellant presented the said cheque given by the accused/respondent in discharge of his obligation to his Federal Bank Limited, Raipur for withdrawal, who came to know through the memorandum issued by the bank on 10.10.2021 that the above cheque was dishonored due to ‘Stop Payment’ by the accused/respondent. Upon informing the accused/respondent through telephone and demanding the amount by the complainant/appellant, the accused/respondent neither paid the aforesaid amount nor gave satisfactory reply in this regard. Thereafter, on 22.10.2011, the complainant/appellant served a legal notice with acknowledgment through his advocate to accused/respondent but the same was returned to his advocate on account of refused to accept and the accused/respondent did not pay the amount to the complainant/appellant which is an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since, the amount was not paid, the complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed.

3. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the accused/respondent herein who then appeared in the matter. The trial was conducted and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent herein on this ground that it was not proved that the accused/respondent had obtained a loan of Rs.25 Lakh from the complainant/appellant and in discharge of the said loan liability, he had given the disputed check of Rs 25 Lakh to the complainant and dismissed the complaint case for want of authenticity, which sought to be challenged by filing the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciated the fact that the cheque in question was issued by the accused/respondent which got dishonored due to ‘stop payment’. The signature on the cheque was not denied and the same was proved by the opinion (D-1) of the expert examined by the defence. It was the defence of the accused/respondent that owing to some circumstances, he had to advice his bank to stop payment vide Ex.D-3(C) upon which advice was noted by the bank vide Ex.D/6 and was dishonoured by the bank. Thus, sufficient material was available on record to act upon the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel further submits that the entire defen