Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Saha @ Pradip Kumar Saha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:11844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019
---------
[Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2018]
---------
Pradeep Kumar Saha @ Pradip Kumar Saha, aged about 48 years, Son of Sri Radhey Krishna Saha, Resident of Village - Madhopur, P.O + P.S - Chandramadih, District - Jamui (Bihar), At present residing at Bela Bagan, Satsang Gate, Deoghar, P.O + P.S and District - Deoghar.
..... Appellant Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Sanjeev Kumar Sah, Resident of Village - Madhopur, P.O + P.S - Chandramadih, District -
Jamui (Bihar) . ..... Respondents
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate
---------
nd Order No.11/ Dated: 22 April, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, 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 19.09.2018, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2018, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2017 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Deoghar in PCR Case No.687 of 2016 (T.R. No.239 of
-1- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019 2026:JHHC:11844 2017), acquitting the respondent No.02 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I Act).
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint case by the appellant-complainant.
4. The brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, namely, Pradeep Kumar Saha, is that the complainant and the accused are friends having good relation. Accused was running a business of brick-kiln on lease at Mauza Silphari, Chakmethitanr, Dist.-Jamui, Bihar. The accused single handedly was not able to run the business well, so he came to him and offered that both will run the business together and will share the income. For which, an agreement was prepared on 10/09/2014 and all the conditions were written in the said agreement. The complainant gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000 (five lakhs) to the accused and both were agreed to do business together for the period from the year 2014 to 2018, but the accused sold the said brick-kiln alongwith the land to one Toplal Sah after one year of agreement. Complainant protested against such sale, but the accused refused. Then the complainant protested and demanded back his share. The accused then gave him amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand) and Rs.96,000/-(Rupees ninety six thousand) in cash and a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only of the State Bank of India, Nawadih Branch bearing cheque no.273077 dated 02.04.2016 and promised to pay the dues amount of
-2- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019 2026:JHHC:11844 Rs.1,84,000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty-four thousand) only within a month. The complainant deposited the above cheque on 07.04.2016 in Central Bank of India, Deoghar Branch for encashment in his account, which got bounced. The complainant informed the accused then the accused requested to give two months' time. After two months, the complainant deposited the cheque in Central Bank of India for encashment, then again the cheque got bounced with endorsement "exceeded arrangement" and returned the cheque bearing no.273077 and the memorandum by the bank. The complainant informed the accused about the cheque bounce and demanded the cheque amount but the accused refused to give the amount. The complainant send a pleader notice through his lawyer on 18.06.2016 which was received by the accused on 21.06.2016, but the accused refused to return the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand).
5. After conducting the trial, the trial court has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (N.I Act).
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant-complainant preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.01 of 2018 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar and vide judgment dated 19.09.2018, the appellate court has affirmed the order of acquittal, passed by the trial court.
The ground for acquittal of respondent No.02 is that
-3- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019 2026:JHHC:11844 it was a blank cheque and the entire entry on the cheque was in different handwriting and only his signature was there.
7. The prosecution has examined altogether two witnesses. Their testimonies, in short, are as follows :-
8. C.W.-1 - Pradeep Kumar Saha, is the complainant and has supported the case. He has deposed that he and accused were friends and businessmen and for partnership an agreement was arrived between them and for that purpose Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) have been given between 2014 to 2018 to the accused. Upon demand, the accused gave him Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand) and Rs.96,000/-(Rupees ninety six thousand) in cash and a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only of the State Bank of India, Nawadih Branch bearing cheque no.273077 dated 02.04.2016.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot produce the proof of Rs.5,00,000/- given to the accused. There is no mention of shares of the partners in the agreement. He has admitted that the description of drawee was written by another person on the cheque ad he was not present at that time. No pleader notice was sent by him. Further, no calculation was prepared by him.
9. C.W.-2, Mahendra Mandal, has supported the prosecution story. He has reiterated the same as C.W.-1.
10. The defence has also examined one witness namely, Sanjeev Kumar Sah as D.W.-1.
11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
-4- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019 2026:JHHC:11844 appellant that since the signature on the cheque has not been denied by the respondent No.02, and as such the presumption lies in favour of the appellant-complainant.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.02 has supported the judgment of acquittal.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the court below has examined the evidence on record and has come to the finding that the presumption has been rebutted by the defence by leading the evidence and in fact, the cheque has been written by the different person and it clearly justifies the defence of the accused.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law in the judgment, passed in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh, reported in (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases
148. Para - 38, 39 & 44 of the said judgment is relevant, which reads as follows.:-
"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
-5- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019 2026:JHHC:11844 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]."
14. Thus, in such situation, the entire evidence has to be evaluated without considering any presumption. In the present case, both the courts below has evaluated the evidence and the finding has been recorded that the cheque is the blank one and the prosecution has failed to prove that the cheque has been issued for any legally enforceable due.
Since the due amount as well as the name of the appellant-complainant has been written in different handwriting that has been taken into account by both the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments of acquittal, passed by both the courts below.
15. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed.
16. 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 22nd April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 29.04.2026
-6- Acq. Appeal (C) No.81 of 2019