Md. Masudul Haque Ansari @ M. H. Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Kumar, J
Md. Masudul Haque Ansari @ M. H. Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2012

Important Points

A friendly loan without commercial consideration does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as friendship cannot serve as consideration for a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Subject

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act

Act Referred

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: S.138
Indian Contract Act, 1872

Headnote

The appellant challenged a judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000 was provided to the accused, against which two security cheques were issued and subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the evidence insufficient to establish a legally enforceable debt. The primary issue was whether a friendly loan, lacking commercial consideration, constitutes a 'legally enforceable debt' under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court reasoned that while a presumption exists in favor of the cheque holder, it can be rebutted by the accused on a 'preponderance of probabilities' as established in Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh. Furthermore, the court observed that under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a legally enforceable contract requires commercial consideration, and friendship alone cannot serve as such consideration. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The document is an acquittal appeal titled Md. Masudul Haque Ansari @ M. H. Ansari – Appellant vs The State of Jharkhand – Respondent. - (!) It is decided on 07-05-2026. - (!) The case is identified as Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2012. - (!) The decision is from the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

What is the primary issue addressed in the acquittal appeal No.10 of 2012?

What is the outcome or ruling of Md. Masudul Haque Ansari @ M. H. Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand?

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. C. Sinha
For the Respondents: Vishwanath Roy

Table of Content
1. summary of loan transaction and trial court acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments regarding signature and presumption. (Para 10 , 11)
3. analysis of s.138 ni act and rebuttal of presumption. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. requirement of commercial consideration for enforceable debt. (Para 15)
5. dismissal of the acquittal appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

[Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint C-1Case No.807 of 2007]

Order No.18/ Dated: 07th May, 2026

1. Heard Mr. P. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/ appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2008, passed by the court of learned learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint C-1 Case No.807 of 2007, acquitting the respondent Nos.2 & 3 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I Act).

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint case by the appellant-complainant.

4. The brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant is that on 3.1.07 the complainant having friendly terms with the accused, in order to help the accused, in his business gave a total loan of rupees two lakhs i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque no.3419 and further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the accused against which in security the accused gave two post dated cheques first being cheque no.000234 dated 10.4.07 for Rs.1,50,000/- and second being cheque no.000211 dated. 13.4 2007 for Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter it is alleged that the complainant deposited both the cheques on 10.4.07 and 13.4.07, respectively, which were dishonoured on 11.4.07 and 17.4.07, respectively due to insufficient funds after which the complainant issued a legal notice dt. 16.4.07 on the accused through registered post A/D which was replied by the accused on 8.5.07 saying that cheque no.000234 was lost on 17.3.07 regarding which he has given information to the police but did not mention any thing regarding the second cheque. To the reply of the accused the complainant sent a reply dated 11.5.07 demanding payment of both the cheque amount being Rs.2,00,000/- within 72 hours but the accused failed to pay. In that circumstances the complainant filed this case. Accordingly the complainant presented this complaint before the learned CJM, Jamshedpur on 21.5.07 which was registered as Complaint C-1 case no. 807/07.

5. After conducting the trial, the trial court has acquitted the respondent Nos.2 & 3 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (N.I Act).

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant-complainant has preferred the present appeal.

7. The prosecution has examined only one witness, i.e. the complainant himself, whose testimony, in short, is as follows :-

8. C.W.-1 – Md. Masoodul Haque, is the complainant and he has supported the case. He has deposed that a friendly loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- has been given by him to the accused and as a security, two cheques were given (Ext.-1 & 2) in his own handwriting, but the same were dishonoured (Ext.-1/1 & 2/1).

In his cross-examination at para – 12, he has admitted that on 29.12.2006 he gave Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque and rupees fifty thousand as cash, but in-chief he has stated otherwise.

9. The defence has also examined two witness namely, Rakesh Kumar Singh as D.W.-1 and the accused himself as D.W.-2.

The prosecution has put up the story that it was a friendly loan and for security the cheques have been issued.

10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the signature on the cheque has not been denied by the respondent No.02, and as such the presumption lies in favour of the appellant-complainant.

11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgm