SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

             APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 275 of 2024

Satyendra Kumar Singh
                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                               Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Saurabh Kumar, Sudhir            Kumar
                               Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Sarfaraz Ahmad

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.
                                                        A378 No. 275 of 2024
                              2


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
                                                                 3


                                    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
                                                                           (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad