Dismissed¶8

Rajesh Kumar v. Sunil Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2025ACQA/36/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; ACQA No.36 of 2025; acquittal appeal under S.419(4) BNSS 2023 against acquittal dated 14.10.2024 (JMFC Akaltara, Criminal Case No.352/2018) under S.138 NI Act; demand notice Ex.P-3 sent 24.10.2017, beyond 30 days of dishonour memo communicated 12.09.2017; proviso (b) to S.138 NI Act mandatory; ingredients of S.138 not attracted; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed; underlying loan Rs.7,40,000/-; judge: Deepak Kumar Tiwari; decided 05.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice regarding payment of the cheque amount was sent to the Respondent/accused beyond the prescribed period of 30 days stipulated under proviso (b) to Section 138 NI Act; since that provision is mandatory, the necessary ingredients of Section 138 are not attracted in this case. ¶6

Rajesh Kumar Vs Sunil Dewangan — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:20483

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No.36 of 2025

¶6

Rajesh Kumar S/o Surendra Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)...Complainant …..Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

Sunil Dewangan S/o Ayodhya Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Karra, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ….Accused ... Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Shri NK Chhatterjee, Advocate.

¶10

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.06 19:51:34 +0530

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

¶12

05.05.2025

¶13

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 419(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No.352/2018 whereby, the Respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under

¶14

¶15

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’).

¶16

As per the averments of the complaint, the Respondent/accused is the relative of the younger brother of the Appellant/Complainant and in the year 2015-16, he has obtained cash loan of Rs.7,40,000/- from the Appellant/Complainant for domestic purpose for which, cheque (Ex.P-1) was given to the Appellant/Complainant and when the same was presented before the Bank, ti was dishonoured (Ex.P-2). It is further averred that even after sending a legal notice (Ex.P-3), when repayment was not done, a complaint case has been filed.

¶17

The trial Court has, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that though the dishonour memo was communicated to the Appellant/Complainant on 12.09.2017, but the communication to that of legal notice was sent to him on 24.10.2017 i.e. beyond a period of 30 days of the receipt of the information from the Bank though the said notice is mandatorily required to be given within 30 days as per Section 138 (b) of the NI Act and accordingly, the Respondent/accused was acquitted.

¶18

Shri Chhatterjee submits that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the Respondent/accused, however, he fairly admits that notice Ex.P-3 in terms of proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act was not sent to him within 30 days of the information received by him from the Bank with regard to the dishonor memo (Ex.P-2) i.e. 12.09.2017 and sent to him on 24.10.2017, which is beyond the prescribed period of 30 days of the receipt of information by him from Bank.

¶19

¶20

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care.

¶21

Admittedly, in the instant case, the notice with regard to the payment of the cheque amount was sent to the Respondent/accused beyond the prescribed period of 30 days as stipulated under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, which is mandatory, therefore, the necessary ingredients of the said Section are not attracted herein.

¶22

In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and as such, there is no reason to take a different view.

¶23

Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶26

Priya

Rajesh Kumar v. Sunil Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Sunil Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Lal Agrawal Vs Umesh Sinha

Chhagan Lal Ganjeer Vs Kaushilaya Bai

Maulana Waliullah Vs Kyamuddin Hasan Urf Panne Kabadi

Ramesh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramavtar Sahu Vs Gulab Chand