Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Chhabra vs Anand Kumar Gupta on 27 July, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.07.30
17:05:29
+0530
CGHC010321382024 2026:CGHC:31884
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 997 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P. S. Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh,..(Complainant)
--- Appellant
versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra R/o House No. 18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P. S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh,...(Accused)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
CRR No. 596 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No.18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar- Kota Main Road) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar, Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Pani Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 604 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramsagar- Kotamain Road) Chirhuldih,
Ramsagar Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
2
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra,gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Pani Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 606 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar – Kota Main Road ) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39 Years
Through Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 609 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhbra Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar- Kota Main Road) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar, P. S. Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. ……….Accused (On Bail), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Pani Tanki, Samta Colony, P. S. Saraswati Nagar,
Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ……Comp., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
3
CRR No. 614 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramsagar Kota Main Road) Chirhuldih,
Ramsagar, Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Pani Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Tashil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 607 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmoharpork (Ramsagar, Kota, Main Road) Chirhuladih
Ramsagar, Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317,near Pani Tanki, Samta, Colony Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Tashil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 605 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar – Kota Main Road ) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Pani Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
4
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 603 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidas Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar – Kota Main Road ) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39 Years
Through Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
CRR No. 594 of 2019
ï‚· Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsidar Chhabra Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No. 18, Gulmohar Park (Ramnagar – Kota Main Road) Chirhuldih,
Ramnagar, Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. (Accused), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Applicant
Versus
1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Mahesh Chandra Gupta Aged About 39 Years
Through – Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through – Collector Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
ACQA No. 996 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani, Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station –
Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And District – Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das
Chhabra, R/o House No – 18, Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, Police
Station – Gudhiyari, District – Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Accused)
5
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1000 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S.-Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra, R/o House No. 18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S.-Gudhiyari, District-Raipur
(C.G.)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1002 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S.-Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra, R/o House No.-18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S.-Gudhiyari, District-Raipur
(C.G.)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1004 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S.- Saraswati
Nagar, Thana- And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,…(Complainant)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chabra Through District Magistrate
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1014 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
6
Years R/o House No.317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, Police Station
Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra R/o House No.-18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, Police Station Gudhiyari, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1013 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o. Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
Years R/o. House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S. Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District – Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o. Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra R/o. House No. 18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, District – Raipur
(C.G.) (Accused)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through – District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1003 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o. Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta Aged About 39
Years R/o. House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S. Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District – Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o. Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra R/o. House No. – 18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S. – Gudhiyari, District – Raipur
(C.G.) (Accused)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through – District Magistrate Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 1001 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S. – Saraswati Nagar,
Tahsil And District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
—Appellant
7
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra, R/o House No. 18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, District – Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
ACQA No. 994 of 2024
ï‚· Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Chandra Gupta, Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 317, Near Paani Tanki, Samta Colony, P.S.-Saraswati
Nagar, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.)
—Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Chhabra S/o Late Shri Tulsi Das Chhabra, R/o House No.-18,
Gulmohar Park, Chirhuldih, Ramnagar, P.S.-Gudhiyari, District-Raipur
(C.G.)
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
All Acquittal Appeals
For Appellant : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate holding the
brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate
All Criminal Revisions
For Applicants : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate holding the
brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For Non-Applicant No. 1 : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
27.07.2026
1. These acquittal appeals and criminal revisions have been preferred against
the judgments passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
in complaint claim cases dated 11.12.2018, whereby, the accused was
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine only and in default of payment of fine,
Simple Imprisonment for certain period and appeals, which were dismissed
by the learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2019.
8
2. The details of Complaint Case Number, Cheque Number, amount, date of
judgment, fine amount imposed by the learned Court below, jail sentence in
default of payment of fine, are given herein-below :-
Sr. Cases filed Criminal Cheque Amount Date of Fine amount Jail
No. in the High Complaint Nos (In rupees) Judgment imposed by Sentence
Court of Case . of Trial the learned in default
Chhattisgarh Numbers Court Court below of
payment
of fine
1. CRR No. 1076/2016 342286 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
614/2019
2. CRR No. 1075/2016 342285 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
594/2019
3. CRR No. 1068/2016 342287 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
596/2019
4. CRR No. 1073/2016 342292 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
603/2019
5. CRR No. 1070/2016 342291 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
604/2019
6. CRR No. 1071/2016 342290 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
605/2019
7. CRR No. 1069/2016 342288 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
606/2019
8. CRR No. 1077/2016 342293 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
607/2019
9. CRR No. 1072/2016 342289 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
609/2019
10. AQUA No. 1071/2016 342290 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
997/2024
11. AQUA No. 1072/2016 342289 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
994/2024
12. AQUA No. 1069/2016 342288 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
996/2024
13. AQUA No. 1068/2016 342287 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
1000/2024
14. AQUA No. 1070/2016 342291 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
1001/2024
15. AQUA No. 1076/2016 342286 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
1002/2024
16. AQUA No. 1075/2016 342285 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
1003/2024
17. AQUA No. 1073/2016 342292 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
1004/2024
18. AQUA No. 1077/2016 342293 80,000/- 11.12.2018 1,00,000/- 3 months
91013/2024
19. AQUA No. 1074/2016 340761 2,00,000/- 11.12.2018 2,20,000/- 1 month
1014/2024
3. The accused Vinod Chhabra issued various cheques to the complainant for
discharge of liabilities, and subsequently those cheques were presented
before the Sindicate Bank, Branch Station Road, Raipur and HDFC Bank,
Branch Devendra Nagar, Raipur and those cheques were dishonoured. The
complainant received intimations given by the concerned Bank with regard
to dishonoure of cheques, and thereafter, legal notices were served upon the
accused within prescribed period and complaint cases were filed under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
4. The accused participated in the proceedings, parties led evidence, and
thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed judgment in all cases and imposed
fine only as mentioned in chart.
5. Both the parties preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Court. The
learned Sessions Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the accused.
Those orders have been challenged by filing criminal revisions. The
complainant had preferred acquittal appeals under Section 372 of CrPC.
Those appeals were dismissed being non-maintainable. Thereafter
complainant filed acquittal appeals under Section 378(4) of CrPC.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that the
complainant failed to establish the fact with regard to issuance of cheques in
discharge of liability. She would submit that the signatures denied by the
accused over cheques were not examined by a handwriting expert. It is also
argued that the complainant failed to lead evidence to establish the fact that
10
cheques were issued in discharge of liability and no other corroborating
evidence was led before the learned trial Court. She would pray to allow
these criminal revisions.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant would oppose.
Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate would submit that the cheques were issued
by accused in discharge of liabilities and this fact was proved by complainant
leading cogent evidence. He would contend that no application was moved
by accused to examine validity of signatures put on cheques by handwriting
expert. He would contend that the complainant examined himself and proved
the fact that cheques were issued in discharge of liabilities and the accused
failed to controvert said piece of evidence. It is also argued that the cheques
issued by accused, were presented before the concerned Banks and those
cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient fund and intimations
were duly received by the complainant from the concerned Banks.
Mr. Devershi Thakur would further argue that legal notices were
served upon the accused, but he failed to reply those notices and failed to
refund the amounts of cheques. He would contend that initially appeals were
preferred under Section 372 of CrPC before the learned Sessions Court
against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, but those appeals
were dismissed treating them not maintainable. He would contend that these
appeals have been preferred by the complainant under Section 378(4) of
CrPC along with applications for grant of leave. He would submit that the
learned Courts below committed error of law while imposing only fine upon
the accused. He would submit that the learned trial Court should have
sentenced the accused person in accordance with the provisions of Section
11
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He would pray to allow acquittal
appeals preferred by the complainant.
8. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate appearing for the State would
support the judgment passed by the learned Courts below.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
10. Section 138 of N.I. Act reads as under :-
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the account.–
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him with a banker for payment of any
amount of money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of money standing to the
credit of that account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made with that bank,
such person shall be deemed to have committed an
offence and shall, without prejudice to any other
provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may be extended to two years, or with
fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
12apply unless–
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn
or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of
the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing,
to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the
receipt of information by him from the bank regarding
the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case
may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque,
within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “debt or
other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.]
11. Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that a person
who has committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act may be punished with imprisonment up to two years or with fine which
may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Thus, the penal
provision given in the Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is
discretionary and it is not necessary for the Court concerned to punish an
accused with imprisonment for a particular period or with fine. In these
cases, the learned Trial Court instead of imprisonment, imposed fine
13
assigning sufficient reasons.
12. To establish a prima facie case against an accused under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant has to prove its ingredients,
which are :-
i. There was a legally enforceable debt.
ii. Cheque was drawn from account of Bank for discharge.
iii. Cheque so issued was returned due to insufficiency of fund.
13. With regard to the criminal revisions preferred by the accused, the
complainant before the learned Trial Court proved the facts that cheques
were issued by accused in discharge of liability or legally enforceable debts.
Cheques were drawn from account of Bank, and subsequently, those cheques
were returned due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued statutory
notice to the accused, but he failed to refund the amount, and thereafter,
complaint cases were filed. The complainant examined himself and proved
all the documents but the accused failed to controvert the evidence led by the
complainant.
14. The evidence led by the complainant remained unrebutted, and therefore, the
learned Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed fine amount only. The
learned appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court.
15. The revisional powers of Criminal Court is limited while exercising the
jurisdiction and it cannot be used to reappreciate any evidence. It is
continued to check that order passed by the subordinate Court does not suffer
from any error of law.
14
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kaptan Singh and Others vs.
State of M.P. and Another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 185, in para 5 held as
under :-
“5. From a conspectus of the above decisions it follows
that the revisional power of the High Court while
sitting in judgment over and order of acquittal should
not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality
in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave
miscarriage of justice. Read in the context of the above
principle of law we have no hesitation in concluding
that the judgment of the trial Court in the instant case is
patently wrong and it has caused grave miscarriage of
justice. The High Court was therefore fully justified in
setting aside the order of acquittal. From the judgment
of the trial Court we find that one of the grounds that
largely weighed with it for acquitting the appellants
was that an Inspector of CID who had taken up the
investigation of the case and was examined by the
defence (D.W.3) testified that during his investigation
he hound that the story as made out by the prosecution
was not true and on the Contrary the plea of the
accused (appellants) that in the night of the incident a
dacoity with murder took place in the house of Baijnath
by unknown criminals and the appellants were
implicated falsely was true . It is trite that result of
investigation can never be legal evidence; and this
Court in Vijender etc. Vs. State of Delhi (JT 1977 (3)
SC 131), made the following comments while
comments while dealing with this issue:
“The reliance of the trial Judge on the result of
investigation to base is findings is again patently
wrong. If the observation of the trial judge in this
regard is taken to its logical conclusion it would
mean that a finding of guilt can be recorded
against an accused without a trial, relying solely
upon the police report submitted under Section
173 Cr.P.C., which is the outcome of an
investigation. The result of investigation under
chapter XII of the Criminal procedure code is a
conclusion that an investigating officer draws on
the basis of materials collected during
15investigating officer draws on the basis of
materials collected during investigation and such
conclusion can only form the basis of a
competent Court to take cognizance thereupon
under Section 190(1) (b) cr. p. c. and to proceed
with the case for trial, where the materials
collected during investigation are to be translated
into legal evidence, The trial conclusion solely
on the evidence adduced during the trial; and it
cannot rely on the investigation or the result
thereof. Since this is law, elementary principle of
criminal law, we need not dilate on this point any
further.”
The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in
commenting upon the trial court’s impermissible and
undue reliance on the evidence of DW 3 and , for that
matter, the result of his investigation . Incidentally it
may be mentioned that ignoring the report of
investigation submitted by the Inspector the Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences alleged against the
appellants and committed the case to the court of
Session. There are other patent infirmities in the
judgment of the trial Court to which the High Court has
adverted but in case any reason given by us for this
comment of ours creates an unconscious impression
upon the trial Court, we refrain from doing so.
17. Revisional power should be applied in a situations where the order contains a
manifest illegality that results in a miscarriage of justice.
18. Having considered concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below
and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Kaptan
Singh(supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgments
passed by learned Courts below against accused, accordingly all criminal
revisions are hereby dismissed.
19. With regard to contention made by Mr. Devershi Thakur, in Section 138 of
16
the N.I. Act the word “or” has been employed and discretion has been
conferred to the Criminal Court sentencing the convicted person for offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Thus, there is a discretion left with the
Criminal Court either to sentence the accused with imprisonment or to
punish the accused with the sentence of fine upon considering the facts and
circumstances of the case.
20. In the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010)
5 SCC 663, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while examining the object
sought to be achieved by provisions of Section 138 of the N. I. Act and
purpose underlying the punishment provided therein has held that Section
138 of the N.I. Act cases are meant to secure payment of money by holding
as under:-
“17. Unlike that for other forms of crime, the
punishment here (insofar as the complainant is
concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but
is more a means to ensure payment of money. The
complainant’s interest lies primarily in recovering the
money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in
jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure
recovery. As against the accused who is willing to
undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy
for the holder of the cheque.”
21. Very recently, in the matter of Somnath Sarkar v. Utpal Basu Mallick and
another reported in (2013) 16 SCC 465, their Lordships of the Supreme
Court while considering the punishment to be imposed under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act have held in no uncertain term that under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act, only fine sentence can be imposed by the Criminal Court and observed
as under:-
17
“15………….Suffice it to say that the High Court was
competent on a plain reading of Section 138 to impose
a sentence of fine only upon the appellant. Inasmuch
as the High Court did so, it committed no
jurisdictional error………..”
22. Thus, from the provisions contained in Section 138 of the N.I. Act and going
by the law laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid
judgments it is quite vivid that Criminal Court sentencing the accused for
commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is competent to
impose sentence of fine only as imposition of jail sentence is not mandatory
as it is discretion vested with the Criminal Court either to impose jail
sentence or sentence of fine only depending on the facts and circumstances
of particular case.
23. Findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court with regard to dismissal of
appeals appear to be just and proper as the proper forum available to the
complainant was to approach the High Court according to the provisions of
Section 378(4) of CrPC instead the complainant filed appeals before the
learned Sessions Court under Section 372 of CrPC.
24. The law with regard to interference in acquittal appeals, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 573 in para 33 held as under :-
“33. The instant case pertains to challenge against
concurrent findings of fact favouring the acquittal of
the respondent, it would be cogent to delve into an
analysis of the principles underlining the exercise of
power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal
bolstered by concurrent findings. The following
broad principles can be culled out after a
18comprehensive analysis of judicial. pronouncements:
33.1. Criminal jurisprudence emphasises on the
fundamental essence of liberty and presumption of
innocence unless proven guilty. This presumption
gets emboldened by virtue of concurrent findings of
acquittal. Therefore, this Court must be extra-cautious
while dealing with a challenge against acquittal as the
said presumption gets reinforced by virtue of a well-
reasoned favourable outcome. Consequently, the onus
on the prosecution side becomes more burdensome
pursuant to the said double presumption.
33.2. In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this
Court would ordinarily not interfere with such view
considering the principle of liberty enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless
perversity is blatantly forthcoming and there are
compelling reasons.
33.3. Where two views are possible, then this Court
would not ordinarily interfere and reverse the
concurrent findings of acquittal. However, where the
situation is such that the only conclusion which could
be arrived at from a comprehensive appraisal of
evidence, shows that there has been a grave
miscarriage of justice, then, notwithstanding such
concurrent view, this Court would not restrict itself to
adopt an oppugnant view. [Vide State of U.P. v. Dan
Singh (1997 3 SCC 747)]
33.4. To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of
acquittal are “perverse” it is to be seen whether there
has been failure of justice. This Court in Babu v. State
of Kerala, (2010 9 SCC 189) clarified the ambit of
the term “perversity” as: (SCC p. 199, para 20)
20…. if the findings have been arrived at by
ignoring or excluding relevant material or by
taking into consideration
irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding
may also be said to be perverse if it is “against
the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the
19
vice of irrationality.”
33.5. In situations of concurrent findings favouring
the accused, interference is required where the trial
court adopted an incorrect approach in framing of an
issue of fact and the appellate court whilst affirming
the view of the trial court, lacked in appreciating the
evidence produced by the accused in rebutting a legal
presumption. [Vide Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023
10 SCC 148.]
33.6. Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to
safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is
based on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in
reappreciation of any fundamental evidentiary
material or a manifest error of law or in cases of non-
adherence to the principles of natural justice or the
decision is manifestly unjust or where an acquittal
which is fundamentally based on an exaggerated
adherence to the principle of granting benefit of doubt
to the accused, is liable to be set aside. Sav in cases
where the court severed the connection between the
accused and criminality committed by him upon a
cursory examination of evidences. [Vide State of
Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh (2024 4 SCC 469) and
Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar(2022 3 SCC 471).
25. In the acquittal appeal preferred by the complainant, there is fundamental
essence of liberty and presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
This presumption gets strength by virtue finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court. Further when two views are possible, then this Court would not
ordinarily interfere and reverse the finding of acquittal.
26. Further, the Hon’ble Supeme Court while dealing with appeal against
acquittal, in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and
Another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 786 in para 15 held as under :-
“15. We are fully alive of the fact that we are dealing
20with an appeal against acquittal and in the absence of
perversity in the said judgment and order, interference
by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction,
is not warranted. It is settled proposition of law that
the appellate court being the final court of fact is fully
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and review the
evidence and take its own decision. Law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and the appellate court is free
to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that
acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is available to
the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person
is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty
by the competent court and there can be no quarrel to
the said legal proposition that if two reasonable views
are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not disturb the findings of
acquittal.
27. Having considered above-discussed facts, findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the judgments passed by the learned trail Court, accordingly,
these Acquittal Appeals are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant
