Dismissed¶12

Reshamlal Bajpayee v. Rajendra Kumar Khande

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2025CRMP/1301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave to appeal against acquittal; Section 419(4) BNSS 2023; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour; rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act; two-views-possible test in appeal against acquittal (Budh Singh (2006) 9 SCC 731; V.N. Ratheesh (2006) 10 SCC 617); effect of presumptions (Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148); complainant admitted repayment of Rs.2,37,500/-; blank cheque as security defence; transaction dubious; leave refused, petition dismissed; CRMP No. 1301 of 2025; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; JMFC Akaltara; Janjgir-Champa; order dated 07/05/2025.

What did the court decide?

No case is made out for grant of special leave to appeal against the acquittal; the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. ¶11

Reshamlal Bajpayee Vs Rajendra Kumar Khande — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2025 passed by the JMFC, Akaltara in Complaint Case No.317/2019 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act — i.e., whether the trial Court's view was perverse or otherwise unsustainable. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

No case is made out for grant of special leave to appeal against the acquittal; the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The complainant, in his statement, accepted that on different dates the respondent/accused had returned the amounts and had already repaid Rs.2,37,500/- in total, which weighed against interference with the acquittal.

¶10

Key takeaways

Taking into consideration the defence of the accused (that in 2012 he took only a Rs.90,000/- loan, against which the complainant obtained a blank cheque as security and had already been repaid more than the loan), the whole transaction appeared dubious and not clear, and on that basis the trial Court recorded the finding of acquittal, which this Court found sustainable.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRMP under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking special leave to appeal against acquittal dated 31.01.2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara (District Janjgir-Champa) in Complaint Case No.317/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, an Advocate, alleged cash loans aggregating Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.1,30,000/- in June 2012; Rs.90,000/- in January 2013) to the respondent/accused, his maternal uncle ('chachera mama'), repayment wherefor was sought through a cheque dated 10.07.2019 of Rs.2,00,000/- which stood dishonoured. Relying on Budh Singh v. State of U.P., V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala and Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, the Court held that where the trial Court's view is a possible one, leave to appeal against acquittal ought not be granted; the complainant had himself admitted repayment of Rs.2,37,500/- in total, and considering the accused's defence (only Rs.90,000/- borrowed; blank cheque taken as security; excess already repaid), the transaction appeared dubious. Held: no case for grant of leave; petition dismissed. (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; 07/05/2025)

2025:CGHC:20997

PRIYANKA VERMA

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.09 10:13:52 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 1301 of 2025

¶8

Reshamlal Bajpayee S/o Late Ajeet Ram Bajpayee Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Kotmisonar, Police Station- Akaltara, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh (Complainant)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

Rajendra Kumar Khande S/o Late Konda Khande Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gataura, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Presently Posted As Constable, Excise Circle, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

07/05/2025

1. Heard.

2. The appellant has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS,

¶19

2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the judgment of

¶20

¶21

acquittal dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.317/2019, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”).

¶22

3. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant is an Advocate and the respondent/accused is his maternal uncle ( chachera mama) . For family expenses, the respondent/accused sought loan in the year 2012, on which, the complainant advanced a cash loan of Rs.1,30,000/- in the month of June, 2012, in the month of January, 2013, Rs.90,000/- and in an aggregate, Rs.2,20,000/- was given as loan. The respondent/accused promised to return the amount within a period of 2-3 years and for repayment of the aforesaid amount, the respondent/accused issued a cheque dated 10.07.2019 of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent. However, even after the said notice, the payment was not made by the respondent. Hence, the complaint was filed.

¶23

4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Petition has been filed for grant of leave.

¶24

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective,

¶25

¶26

though there is a legal presumption under Sections 139 & 118 of the NI Act.

¶27

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

7. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law.

¶29

8. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his

¶30

¶31

innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

¶32

9. In the matter of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh , reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 , the law relating to the effect of legal presumption as per Section 118 and Section 139 of the NI Act has been clarified. As per Section 118 of the NI Act it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and as per Section 139 of the Act “unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability. Both the presumptions are rebuttable in nature.

¶33

10. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in the impugned judgment. The cheque has

¶34

¶35

been issued for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant, in his statement, accepted the fact that on different dates, the respondent/accused has returned the amounts to him and in total, the respondent/accused has already returned an amount of Rs.2,37,500/-. Further, the respondent/accused has taken a defence that in the year 2012, he took a loan of Rs.90,000/- only and at the time of such loan, the complainant obtained a blank cheque as security and he had already returned more than the amount of the loan, therefore, taking into consideration the defence taken by the accused, the whole transaction appears to be dubious and not clear and thus, a finding of acquittal has been recorded by the trial Court.

¶36

11. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for grant of leave and the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one.

¶37

12. Resultantly, the Petition being bereft of any merits or substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶40

Priyanka

Reshamlal Bajpayee v. Rajendra Kumar Khande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshamlal Bajpayee v. Rajendra Kumar Khande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mo. Arif Vs Ashish Joshi

Prakash Sachdev Vs Sahab Lal Maurya

Nikhil Kumar Agrawal Vs Tulsi Bai Puri

Xyz Vs Bhuneshwar Prasad Dadsena

Yogesh Valryani Vs B.G. Enterprises

Krishna Prasad Kunwar Vs Shravan Yadav