Jharkhand High Court
Nageshwar Pandit @ N. Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:10788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (S.J) No.42 of 2008
---------
[Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 02.02.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IX), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2006]
---------
Nageshwar Pandit @ N. Pandit, son of Sri Kadru Pandit, resident of Road No.4, New Subhash Colony, Sanjay Path, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O & P.S. Mango, Town - Jamshedpur, District - Singhbhum East. ..... Appellant Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chandra Deo Sharma, son of Late Nalku Sharma, Resident of H. No.13, Line No.1, Kashidih, P.O & P.S. Sakchi, Town - Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East.
..... Respondents
---------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
---------
th Order No.16/ Dated: 16 April, 2026
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/ appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.02.2008, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IX), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2006, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.200 of 2002 (T.R. No.536 of 2006), has been
-1- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 set aside and the respondent No.02 has been acquitted and has been discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint case being C/1 Case No.200 of 2002 by the appellant-complainant.
4. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the complaint, is that the complainant-appellant is the proprietor of M/s Mritunjay construction and carrying his business of construction job having its office situated at New Subhash Colony, Sanjay Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur. The further case of the complainant is that on 15/10/2001 both parties entered into an agreement for construction work at the land of respondent No.2. The complainant constructed plinth level of Rupees 11,85,638/- and this amount was due and payable by the respondent No.2 to the appellant-complainant. Against the said liabilities, the respondent No.2 on demand of the appellant- complainant issued an account Payee cheque bearing cheque No.1078435 dated 10/01/2002 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). The said cheque was drawn on Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sakchi, Jamshedpur. The complainant was assured by the respondent No.2 that he had sufficient fund in his bank account and the cheque could be encashed on presentation in the Bank. The appellant-complainant presented the said cheque for payment with his banker i.e. Punjab National Bank, Mango Branch, but the cheque was dishonoured due to 'stop payment' by the respondent No.2. Thereafter the
-2- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 complainant served a legal Notice to the respondent No.2, the said notice was issued on 25/01/2002 in which demand of the payment of cheque was made but in spite of receipt of said notice, the respondent No.2 did not make payment and gave an evasive reply through his lawyer.
After passing of the prescribed period, the appellant- complainant filed a complaint case being C1-Case No.200/2002 in the court of learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur, who after taking cognizance transferred the case to the court of learned J.M., 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
5. After conducting the trial, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (N.I Act) and sentenced him to undergo S.I for six months and further directed to pay the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,000,00/- as compensation to the appellant-complainant.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.243 of 2006 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C - IX), Jamshedpur and vide judgment dated 02.02.2008, the appellate court has acquitted the respondent No.2 on the ground that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act is not applicable.
7. The dates and the factual matrix of the case have not been disputed by either of the parties.
8. The prosecution has examined altogether three witnesses and exhibited certain documents and the defence has examined four witnesses. Their testimonies are as
-3- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 follows :-
P.W.-1 - Nageshwar Pandit, is the complainant of the case and he has stated that an agreement was made in between him and the respondent No.02 for the construction of a multi-storey building. He has stated that he has done construction work of Rs.12,85,638.80 as per the agreement. He further deposed that the respondent No.2 has issued a cheque dated 10.01.2002 amounting to Rs.10,000,00/- (Ten lakhs) against the said work and when he presented the said cheque for payment the same was dishonoured on the ground of 'stop payment'.
P.W.-2, Anil Kr. Chadha, is bank employee, has stated that on 11.01.2002 cheque was presented in the P.N.B, Mango Branch and the cheque was sent to S.D.C, Co-operative bank, Sakchi for clearance but the cheque was returned due to 'stop payment'. He has stated that the cheque was returned to the party.
P.W.-3, Rajinder Singh is an employee of the Co- operative Bank and he has deposed that the cheque was received in the Bank for clearance and the said cheque was returned to the P.N.B as because the party has instructed to stop the payment. He has proved the application of 'stop payment' (Ext.-B).
D.W.-1, Raman Kumar Sarkar, is an advocate
-4- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 clerk and he has proved two notices, postal receipt and certificate of postal receipt.
D.W.-2, Chandra Deo Sharma, is the respondent No.2 and he has admitted that an agreement was entered in between both parties for the construction of building in the year 2001. He paid 3,61,920/- to the complainant by cash and cheque. He has admitted that he had issued cheque of this case as loan and complainant had given money receipt and the complainant also issued cheque of the Rs.10,00,000/- as security. The money receipt was prepared by the complainant. He has further stated that he has also filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the complainant when the cheque was bounced due to insufficient fund.
D.W.-3, David Mashi, is the Supervisor of a firm, who has stated that both cheques were not issued in his presence. He learnt about the agreement and issuance of cheque from C.D. Sharma. He has further stated that C.D. Sharma had had issued cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant as a loan.
D.W.-4, S. R. Kar Roy, has stated that Nageshwar Pandit has taken money from him for providing employment to his son but cheated. He has proved several letters through which Nageshwar Pandit has demanded money from him.
-5- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008
2026:JHHC:10788
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he approached the police for recovery of friendly loan taken by Nageshwar Pandit, but the police has taken no action.
9. The following documents have been exhibited by the parties :-
Documents exhibited by the prosecution
1. Ext.-1 - Agreement,
2. Ext.-2 - Cheque,
3. Ext.-3 - Cheque deposit slip
4. Ext-4 - Postal receipt
5. Ext.-5 - Cheque return memo
6. Ext.-6 - Acknowledgment (A/D)
7. Ext.-A, A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5, A/6, A/7 & A/8 - Photographs.
8. Ext.-B - Carbon copy of stop payment.
9. Ext.-D - Cheque return memo dated 23.01.2002
10. Ext.-E - Cheque (original)
11. Ext.-F - Signature in money receipt.
12. Ext.-G - Letters
13. Ext.-H - Carbon copy of report given to Mango Police Station.
14. Ext.-I - Judgment (certified copy) of C1-4/00 Documents exhibited by the Defence
1. Exts.-A & A/a - Notices
2. Exts.-B, B/a & B/b - postal receipts
3. Exts. -C & C/a - Certificates of postal receipts.
10. Especially, Ext.-F has been brought to the notice of this Court which reads as under :-
म, न गशर पड त, डपत बदर पड त, पत :, सभ ष क ल न , सजय पथ, र न०- 08 ड मन र जमशदपर आज डदन क : 7-01-2002 क चनदव शम $ डपत स० नलक& शम $ पत ह ० न०-13, ल ईन न०-1, क श ह, स कच , जमशदपर स दस ल ख रपय 10,00,000/- रपय क एक च*क ल रह ह, ज डदन क 10-01-2002 क ह* तथ डसहभ&म स-ट/ल क - ऑपरडटव बक डलडमट क ह* और चक सख -1078435 ह* । यह च*क म- कज$ क रप म- ल रह ह, तथ चनदव शम $ क मझ पर क ई कज$ य दय नह ह* और यह रकम म- छ6 (6) मह न ब द ल7ट द&,ग । उक च*क क बदल म- म बत7र सरक क त7र पर चनदव शम $ क इस रकम दस ल ख -10,00,000/क एक च*क डदन क 20.01.2002 क द रह ह, तथ इस च*क क सख - 366654 ह* और यह च*क सट बक ऑफ इण@य जमशदपर श ख क ह तथ मर द र उक कर छ (6) म ह क अदर व पस नह कर सकन क णBथडत म- चनदव शम $ क मर* द र डदय गय च*क 366654 त ररख - 20-01-2002 क भ ज।न क प&र$ अडFक र ह ग ।
-6- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008
2026:JHHC:10788
उक तथ क सह प त हए प&र$ ह श -हव स म ब न ककस दब व क अपन हस कर कर रह ह, ।
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon paragraph Nos.35, 36 & 37 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh, reported in (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 148, which reads as under.
"35. The Court will necessarily presume that the cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the complainant proves that cheque was issued/executed in his favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out above form the fact(s) which bring about the activation of the presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Vs. Amin Chand Pyarela] [(1999) 3 SCC 35].
36. Recently, this Court has gone to the extent of holding that presumption takes effect even in a situation where the accused contends that 'a blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the complainant. [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar]. Therefore, mere admission of the drawer's signature, without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the presumption.
37. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a cheque, was issued by the accused for discharge of debt, the presumptive device under Section 139 of the Act helps shifting the burden on the accused. The effect of the presumption, in that sense, is to transfer the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not received by the Bank towards the discharge of any liability. Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further."
12. Referring to the above judgment, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has a presumptive value and once presumption is there and the factum of cheque and dishonour has not been disputed rather the finding has been recorded in favour of the present appellant and as such the judgment of acquittal is bad in law.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
-7- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 respondent No.2, has submitted that the presumption can always be rebutted and in the present case, onus has been discharged by producing Ext.-F (Receipt of money), which clearly suggests that the cheque has been issued only for loan and not for discharge of any legal liability.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on Para - 38, 39 & 44 of the above judgment, passed in Rajesh Jain (Supra), which reads as under :-
"38. John Henry Wigmore on Evidence states as follows:
"The peculiar effect of the presumption of law is merely to invoke a rule of law compelling the Jury to reach the conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the opponent but if the opponent does offer evidence to the contrary (sufficient to satisfy the Judge's requirement of some evidence), the presumption 'disappears as a rule of law and the case is in the Jury's hands free from any rule."
39. The standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an accused. The accused is not expected to prove the non- existence of the presumed fact beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must meet the standard of "preponderance of probabilities", similar to a defendant in a civil proceeding. [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan]
44. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption "disappears" and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa; see also, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan]."
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the transactions between the parties are not in dispute. The judgment relied
-8- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008 2026:JHHC:10788 upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Rajesh Jain (Supra), clearly suggests that the presumptive value can always be rebutted and once an evidence has been brought on record, rebutting the presumption, then the presumption disappears, as a rule of law and the case is in the Jury's hands free from any rule.
16. In the present case, the court has recorded the finding that although the complainant has stated that he has submitted the bill and in response of that bill, the present cheque has been issued. Even, the bill has not been produced in the court below. Thus, the very basis has not been proved rather the Ext.-F suggests otherwise.
17. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the Judgment of acquittal 02.02.2008, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IX), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2006, requires no interference.
18. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed.
19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 16th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 20.04.2026
-9- Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2008