Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Baderiya vs Dronacharya Dubey on 10 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:22914
Digitally NAFR
signed by
AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
Date:
2025.06.12
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
10:50:12
+0530
CRMP No. 1606 of 2025
Dinesh Baderiya S/o Late Jagdishchandra Baderiya Aged About 64 Years Occupation -
Business, R/o Bajarpara, Baikunthpur, Distt. - Koriya (C.G.), (Complainant)
... Applicant.
versus
Dronacharya Dubey Marketing In-Charge, Dainik Bhaskar Koriya, Near B.S.N.L. Office,
Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Distt. - Koriya (C.G.), (Accused)
... Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
SB : Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
10.06.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 – An application for condonation of
delay.
2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed
and the delay is condoned.
3. The appellant has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the
BNSS, 2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, Koriya in Complaint Case
2
No.44/2018, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted
of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short, “the NI Act“).
4. As per complaint case, the complainant is doing business of
publication of advertisement styled as “Baderiya Advertisers” and
respondent/accused is marketing in-charge in Dainik Bhaskar
publication. At the instance of the respondent/accused, the
complainant published advertisement, for which, he has given post
dated cheque of the date 15.04.2017 of Rs.42,000/- (Ex.P-1).
When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same got
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a legal
notice was sent to the accused, however, despite receiving the
same, payment was not made, therefore, a complaint was filed.
5. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the
respondent/accused. Hence, this leave to appeal has been
preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective though
there is a legal presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the NI
Act.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
8. 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
3
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 evidences 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.
9. 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
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
4
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.
10. Reverting back to the present case, the complainant Dinesh
Baderiya admitted in his cross-examination that he has told the
accused that he has to recover the arrears and for such purpose he
gave him a cheque and when amount will realize he will present
the cheque for encashment. He also admitted that when the
respondent/accused was engaged in his job, his mother fell ill,
therefore, he left the job and he denied that he has not returned
the cheque. The trial Court after evaluating the overall evidence on
record reached to the conclusion that there was dispute regarding
payment of recovery towards advertisement and
respondent/accused was engaged for such purpose. So the
complainant failed to establish that there is legal enforceable
liability against the respondent/accused. Moreover, he has not filed
5
any statement of account showing that what charges he has
received for advertisement and how payment was not paid. In such
circumstances, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption
stipulated by Section 139 of the NI Act 1881. It is also established
that where two views are possible, then the appellate Court should
not ordinarily interfere and reverse the findings of acquittal.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and in light of the aforesaid
principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner failed
establish a case for grant of leave to appeal and that the findings
arrived at by the trial Court in the judgment of acquittal is based
on proper appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken
by the trial Court is a possible one.
12. In the result, the application for grant of leave to appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
[ad_1]
Source link