Prem Nath Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand

: Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. : Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate. Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate. ------ O R D E R Order No. 11 / Dated 27th April, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 100 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 162 of 2014, by which the learned trial court has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has 1 been affirmed and also against the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 100 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the petitioner had filed a Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No. 162 of 2014 against opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, it has been alleged that the petitioner had supplied building materials i.e. Sand, Bricks and Boulders to opposite party no. 2 in the year 2013, who was a contractor, at his site at Tata Nagar Railway Station, the total value of which was Rs. 5,00,000/- and in lieu thereof, the opposite party no. 2 had issued A/c Payee Cheque bearing Cheque No. 839364 dated 20.11.2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bishtupur Branch, Jamshedpur in favour of petitioner, which had got dishonoured on presentation with remarks “Stop Payment”. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent, but opposite party no. 2 flatly refused to make payment.

4. After enquiry, prima facie, case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was found to be made out against the opposite party no. 2. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was explained to accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2

5. The complainant in support of its case has examined himself and also exhibited documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1 : Original Cheque dated 20.11.2013, Exhibit-2 : Cheque Return Memo dated

08.12.2013, Exhibit-3 : Legal Notice dated 16.12.2013 and Exhibit- 4 : Postal Receipts. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

6. After closure of evidence, the statement of petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he pleaded to be innocent and further submitted that the allegations against him are false.

7. Due to lack of communication, the petitioner was not apprised of the dates for appearing in the trial court for his cross- examination which resulted into an order of acquittal of opposite party no. 2 by the learned trial court.

8. Against the order of acquittal, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge.

9. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that since his cross-examination is essential for just decision of the case and is also ready for the same, he may be allowed to be cross- examined or direction may be given to the trial court to take his 3 evidence, but the appellate court, however, by its order dated

30.05.2017 dismissed the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the same date, the appellate court has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner i.e. on

30.05.2017, which have been assailed in this revision.

10. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly petitioner is complainant in in Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No. 162 of 2014. After the summoning order passed against the accused (opposite party no. 2), the evidence on oath of the complainant / petitioner was recorded, but thereafter due to exceptional hardship, he could not appear for cross-examination, rather he has submitted all the documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1 : Original Cheque dated 20.11.2013, Exhibit- 2 : Cheque Return Memo dated 08.12.2013, Exhibit-3 : Legal Notice dated 16.12.2013 and Exhibit-4 : Postal Receipts, which clearly establishes the case of the complainant. The learned trial court, without appreciating the documentary evidence available on record, which were not rebutted by the accused, has acquitted the accused from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court vide Cr. Appeal No. 100/2015. In the meantime, petitioner has also preferred an application under Section 391 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for allowing him to be cross-examined and to adduce 4 additional evidence in support of his case on 29.05.2017, but on the same day itself i.e. on 30.05.2017, application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and Cr. Appeal No. 100/2015 has been dismissed by the appellate court. Therefore, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced from the impugned judgments without any fault on his behalf. Both the courts below have committed serious error of law in not considering the documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court are fit to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to concerned trial court for re-registering the case and proceed further in accordance with law.

11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant was deliberately avoiding the proceeding and not taking any proper steps, therefore, there is no error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal, calling for any interference. This revision is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed.

12. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of both parties. It appears that there is substantial error of law committed by both the courts below in not considering 5 the unrebutted documentary evidence relied upon by complainant (petitioner). It is also apparent that the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner / complainant was also rejected on the same day of passing the impugned judgment by the learned appellate court. It further transpires that both the trial court as well as appellate court have ignored the documentary evidence available on record laid by the complainant, therefore order of dismissal of the complaint is not justifiable.

13. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court are hereby set aside. This revision is allowed and the proceeding of Complaint Case is restored.

14. The learned trial court is directed to register the Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No. 162 of 2014 in its original number and after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence, pass a fresh judgment on merits.

15. The trial of the case must be expedited without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) April 27, 2026 Sunil/NAFR Uploaded on 07/05/2026 6