2024:CGHC:43952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 24.09.2024 Judgment Delivered on 12 .11.2024 ACQA No. 117 of 2012 Golchha Finance through its Proprietor Yogesh Kumar Golchha, S/o Shri Ranidan Golchha, aged about 53 years, R/o Balak Chowk, Ps Citi Kotwali, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Appellant Versus Navmilal Sonkar S/o Shri Duluram Sonkar aged about 40 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Nayapara Ward, Ps City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, on behalf of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

1. This acquittal appeal is filed under Section 387 (4) of Cr.P.C by the appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dhamtari, whereby the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment dated 14.04.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 419/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari and has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant filed complaint case against the accused/respondent on the ground that on 03.01.2000, the respondent had taken loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the appellant for personal expenditure and against the said loan, the respondent had executed a promissory note acknowledging the liability of the said amount. Subsequently, on 08.04.2002, the respondent, in discharge of the above mentioned liability, had issued a cheque No. 181472 of Nagrik Sahakari Bank, Dhamtari amounting to Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the appellant/complainant. However, as the banking transactions of the said bank were suspended, during the said period the respondent had requested the appellant that he may wait for some time and if the banking transactions do not resume, he would give another cheque of a different bank. The appellant/complainant presented the cheque for encashment on 05.10.2022 and on the same date, he was intimated by the bank through a memo that cheque could not be honoured. On 21.10.2002, the appellant sent a notice to respondent, through registered post intimating him about dishonour of the cheque and requested him to repay the amount within 15 days, but the respondent did not pay the cheque amount to the complainant. So, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

3. In support of the complaint, the appellant/complainant examined himself along with another witness S. S. Khalsa and the respondent also examined himself along with Rajendra Maheshwari and Hardeep Singh.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence by judgment dated 14.04.2009, convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and a fine amounting to Rs.

10,000/-.

5. The respondent has filed appeal against this judgment and the learned Sessions Court vide impugned judgment dated 07.05.2010 has set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and has acquitted the respondent. Hence, this acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in its correct perspective. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the respondent, but the learned Appellate Court ignored the well reasoned finding of the learned trial Court. It is clear that execution of cheque