A378/275/2024 of SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 275 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Mani Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sarfaraz Ahmad,  learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.  2. This application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division/ Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No.800339 of 2014 (Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. Asad Ahmad), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra. 3. It is alleged that the complainant, Satyendra Kumar Singh, filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stating therein that the opposite party No.2 namely, Asad Ahmad issued a cheque to complainant bearing Cheque No.047452 dated 01.03.2014 of Rs. 14 lakh of Union Bank of India, Branch- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra on his account bearing No.593002010005387 against the payment of borrowed money of Rs. 14 lakh, which was given by the complainant Satyendra Kumar Singh in cash. The said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. The trial court completely ignored the material facts and evidence on record and  proceeded to decide the case on pure surmises and conjunctures. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Kumar, Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Sarfaraz Ahmad Satyendra Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the application and argued that the opposite party No.2 had never received a sum of Rs.14 lakh or any other amount of money from the complainant. He admitted that the cheque was signed by the opposite party No.2 but its content was not filled by him. The complainant had misused the cheque of opposite party No.2, which was lost. The opposite party No.2 had informed the Union Bank of India regarding loss of cheque. 5. The learned trial court has recorded a clear finding that the complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to advance an amount of Rs.14 lakh. The complainant's contention was that the said amount was arranged by selling the land of his brother-in-law, however, the said brother-in-law was neither examined as a witness nor any documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the alleged sale or availability of fund. The complainant could not prove his regular source of income commensurate with such a substantial transaction.  6. It is well settled that the statutory presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of  Negotiable Instruments Act creates in favour of complainant, but the same is rebuttable on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The accused is not required to disprove the complainant's case beyond reasonable doubt but can rebut the presumption by raising a probable defence. 7. In the present case, the defence raised by the accused is that the cheque was only signed by him and that its contents were not filled by him, coupled with the absence of proof of financial capacity of complainant has been duly considered by the trial court. 8. Further, the accused brought on record the intimation given to the Union Bank of India, Branch- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra regarding the loss of the cheque. Though the bank official was not examined to prove the receiving of the cheque, the said circumstance was rightly taken into account by the trial court as a part of the overall defence while appreciating the probabilities.  9. The appreciation of evidence by trial court cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly illegal so as to call for interference in an A378 No. 275 of 2024 2 appeal against acquittal. The Court does not find any substantial question of law, compelling reason warrant admission. The application is liable to be dismissed.  10. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is  dismissed.  February 9, 2026 P. Pandey A378 No. 275 of 2024 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)