Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Singh Finance Corporation vs Manoj Kumar on 30 September, 2014
CRM-A-582-MA of 2014 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at
Chandigarh
CRM-A-582-MA of 2014(O&M)
Date of decision: 30.9.2014
M/s Singh Finance Corporation ..Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar ..Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahavir S. Chauhan
Present: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
******
Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.(Oral)
Heard.
Applicant-appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short,"the Act") alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for discharge of enforceable debt received by him from the applicant-appellant and that cheque when presented for encashment, was returned uncashed by the bankers of the respondent with the report "account closed". The respondent was summoned and after serving notice of accusation applicant-appellant produced evidence. Both the sides were heard and the learned trial Magistrate on the basis of receipt Exhibit D1 came to the conclusion that the amount of loan stood already paid by the respondent to an employee of the applicant-appellant, namely Harjit Singh and that NIRMAL KANT 2014.10.07 10:36 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-A-582-MA of 2014 2 being so on the date of issue of the cheque, there was no enforceable debt. Accordingly, complaint was dismissed and respondent was acquitted vide order dated 24.2.2014. Applicant- appellant has filed the instant appeal with an application to seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. It has remained undisputed that the receipt Exhibit D1 was issued by Harjit Singh an employee of the applicant-appellant. Though it is claimed by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that Harjit Singh was not an employee of the applicant-appellant on the relevant date but no materials have been brought on record to substantiate this plea. Incidentally, the receipt, Exhibit D1, is on the letter head of the applicant-appellant and it has been so admitted by the applicant-appellant in his cross-examination.
In view of these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference, therefore, application for leave to appeal against the impugned order is found to be unacceptable and is dismissed.
September 30,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN)
nk JUDGE
NIRMAL KANT
2014.10.07 10:36
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh