NAFR Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .03.28 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

14:00:30 +0530 ACQA No. 457 of 2024

1 - Jitendra Shadangi S/o Late Shri Chakradhar Shadangi Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Koshtapara, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Pramod Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Beladula, Raigarh Tah And District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) :

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shr i Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Judgment on Board

13/02/2026

1. Present is a acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Raigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2022, whereby the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/accused and acquitted him from the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as NIA).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was the complainant before the learned trial Court. He prosecuted a complaint case under Section 138 of the NIA Act against the respondent/accused with the allegation that the respondent/accused had given a cheque of his bank account of Bhartiya State Bank, Raigarh Branch bearing No. 272241 dated 05.06.2015 amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/-. When he deposited the said cheque in his bank account at Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raigarh Branch, for its clearance on 09.06.2015, the same was dishonoured by the payee bank on 10.06.2015 on the ground of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. On 23.06.2015, he served a legal demand notice to the accused and demanded the amount of the cheque, but he refused to accept the notice and has not paid the amount of the cheque. Then, he filed the complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh. The complaint case was registered on 13.07.2015, and a process was issued against the accused. The accused was produced before the learned trial court on 25.10.2018 pursuant to the permanent arrest warrant issued against him. He was released on bail on the same day, and details of the offence were explained. On 26.04.2022, evidence of the witnesses was recorded. The statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which the respondent accused explained that he has not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant and there is no legally admissible dues against him, and he is entitled to acquittal.

3. After hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him for S.I. for 03 months and compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- in default of payment of compensation, one month additional S.I.

4. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, by filing his Criminal Appeal No. 72/2022, which was allowed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 22.12.2022, holding that the complaint has failed to prove that there exists a legally recoverable debt against the accused and to discharge his liability he issued the subject cheque in favour of the complainant. It is further observed by the learned appellate Court that although the accused has entered into a compromise with the complainant, however, the same cannot be considered that there exists a legally recoverable debt, and it is for the complainant to prove the same by producing cogent evidence. There is a lack of evidence of existing liability and accordingly acquitted the respondent/accused which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant has proved