The appellate court cannot remand a case for retrial without a request from the accused, and the burden of proof lies with the accused to disprove liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORAL ORDER

In these petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C , petitioners who are complainants before the trial Court, have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, whereby it allowed the appeals filed by the accused, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I Act') and remanded all the complaints to the trial Court with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. In all this petitions, complainant and accused are common and the case put forth by the complainant and the defence taken by the accused is common. Therefore, these cases are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.

4. Complainant, which is a company represented by it's Director filed 5 separate complaints against the accused represented by its authorised signatory, alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.

5. In Crl.RP.Nos.228/2025, 230/2025 and 231/2025, it is contended by the complainant that towards repayment of loan of ₹1,00,00,000/- each taken by the accused company, cheques of different dates were issued duly signed by the authorised signatory Syed Misbah Aga. Similarly, in Crl.RP.Nos.233/2025, it is contended by the complainant, that cheque dated 06.07.2021 for ₹95,48,192/- was issued by the authorised signatory, with regard to the amount due in respect of supply of steel barrels by the complainant to accused company. So far as Crl.RP.No.234/2025 is concerned, it is the case of complainant that accused has taken hand loan of ₹50 lakhs through two cheques dated 04.07.2019 for a sum of ₹25 lakhs each and towards repayment of the same issued cheque dated 01.07.2021, for ₹50 lakhs. However, when these cheques were presented for realization, they were dishonoured as they exceeds arrangements. Therefore, complainant got issued legal notice and it is duly served on the accused. However, he has neither paid the amount due nor sent any reply and hence the complaint.

6. After due service of summons, the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. He has taken up a defence that there are three more Directors in the company, who are in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business. The cheques were not issued towards repayment of any dues to complainant. They were issued to one Yusuf Ahmed by way of security. There is material alteration in the cheques. The legal notice is not served on the accused.

7. In all the cases, PW-1 is examined and documents were marked for the complainant.

8. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C , the accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the complainant.

9. Accused has also given evidence as DW-1, but no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

10. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine and awarded compensation out of the fine amount recovered.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Sessions Court by contending that the impugned judgment and order is based on surmises and presumptions and not supported by any material evidence. All the Directors of the accused company are not made accused and therefore complaint is not maintainable. As admitted by the complainant, the accused company is closed after 2021. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the defence of the accused. The cheques were issued to one Yusuf Ahmed and after his demise, they have been misused by the complainant. During the cross-examination of PW-1, her witness i.e., PW-2 was present in the Court and therefore his evidence is liable to be discarded. PW-2 was not authorised by the complainant to give evidence there is material alteration in the cheques. The quantum of compensation ordered is arbitrary.

12. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court has remanded to the trial court to enabl