Guru Traders, Proprietor Anita Dubey W/o Late Shri Sudhakar Dubey Aged About 43 Years v. Shri R. Murgesh Aged About 55 Years R/o Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 684 of 2025 Guru Traders, Proprietor Anita Dubey W/o Late Shri Sudhakar Dubey Aged About 43 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Mouharkhar, P.S. And Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Petitioner versus Shri R. Murgesh Aged About 55 Years R/o Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.02.2025 1. The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.01.2025 passed in Special CIS No. 552/2018 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur whereby the learned JMFC has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act, 1881) by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.02.25 15:53:04 +0530 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the husband of the 2 complainant namely Sudhakar Dubey filed a complaint case on 04.01.2017 under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 against the accused/respondent who died on 05.04.2019 during pendency of the complaint case. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording statements of the parties and hearing the argument passed order of acquittal on 10.1.2025. The further case of the complainant is that ; the complainant runs a business in the name of 'Guru Traders' and works selling of iron rod and cement etc. The accused is contractor of Irrigation department. The accused usually purchased rod and cement from the complainant. They had cordial relations. On 5.10.2016 the accused purchased rod and cement and issued a cheque bearing No. 02022841 valued Rs. 3, 00, 000.00 (Three lakhs) of the price of materials. That, the complainant presented the cheque in the State Bank of India, Kota for encashment on 7.10.2016 to deposit in his account No. 30318832222. The Bank dis-honoured the cheque for the reason "Exceeds arrangement". The State Bank received information of dis-honour of cheque on 25.10.2016, which the SBI intimated the complainant on 28.10.2016. The complainant served demand notice through his counsel on 18.10.2016 for payment of said amount of Rs. 300000/- (Three lakhs). The demand-notice dated 21.11.2016 was received by the accused on 23.11.2016 but the accused did not pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days. The cause of action arose on 6.12.2016 and the complaint 3 was filed on 4.1.2017 within prescribed period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in its right perspective. He further submits that the finding given for acquittal by the learned trial Court is perverse and liable to be set-aside. He also submits that learned trial Court ought to have seen and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the complainant when the deposition of the complainant is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. Thus, learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offence by recording a finding which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record it transpires that the accused has produced document Ex.D-02 in which payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- is shown to have been made to Guru Traders whereas the complainant has not made any denial in this regard nor he has produced any purchase receipt. But the complainant has presented Ex.P.-07 on perusal of which it is seen that on 05.10.2016 cement and rods worth Rs. 1,92,617/- were sold from his firm and not goods worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. Due to which the facts of the complainant are doubtful. 4 Also considering the fact that it is not necessary to rebut these presumptions beyond reasonable doubt. These presumptions can also be rebutted by the material and circumstances available on record. The witness has also accepted that there is a general sales register of the goods sold in his shop, in which the entries of the goods sold are recorded, but he has not produced a single document of the said register in the case. It has also been accepted by the complainant that in the part A of Ex.D.-02 bank statement dated 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015, there is a mention of "depositing an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- through RTGS on 14.09.2015." The witness also accepted that the accused used to buy goods on credit from his shop and in respect of the said credit, a cheque was taken from the accused as security. The complainant has also failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque given by the accused was for legitimate recovery. 6. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the JMFC acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, I do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 7. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- 5 "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Bhumika