Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shankar Parshad vs Hukam Chand on 27 October, 2014
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM-A-452-MA of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-452-MA of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.10.2014
Shankar Parshad
...Applicant
Versus
Hukam Chand
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
By filing the present petition, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the appellant has assailed the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 23.05.2013, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused therein of the charge framed against them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that learned trial Court without appreciating the fact that the respondent had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- to discharge his liability which was dishonoured. The respondent has duly admitted his signature on the cheque but the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration this KUMAR SUMIT 2014.11.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-452-MA of 2013 -2- aspect of the matter.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the applicant. The respondent is an illiterate person. The applicant used to deal with all accounts of the respondent. The parties were having cordial relations and known to each other for the last 20 year. The applicant has misused the cheque in question. In cross examination of the applicant, he stated that he had been procuring loan for the respondent from one Bhalla Jewellers since 2002, and outstanding of respondent towards Bhalla Jewellers became very high and he in fact had paid Rs. 2 lacs to Bhalla Jewellers on behalf of respondent and the said amount was due towards the respondent. Now, he again procured loan for the respondent from Bhalla Jeweller in June 2007 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. This clearly shows the mala fide intention of the applicant towards respondent.
This Court has heard the rival contentions of the parties and carefully gone through the impugned judgment.
The learned Judicial Magistrate has recorded that a lot of doubt exists in the mind of the Court regarding existence of actual transaction between the parties and regarding genuineness of the claims of the applicant, since the applicant has taken up altogether different stands in his cross examination from the stand taken by him KUMAR SUMIT 2014.11.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-452-MA of 2013 -3- in his complaint and in his examination in chief.
Even, otherwise, there is no evidence that applicant had repaid the loan of Rs.1,70,000/- to Bhalla Jewellers. The applicant took a stand before the trial Court that he had procured a loan of Rs. 2 lacs for the accused and the same has been repaid by him to discharge the liability of respondent and the said amount has not been paid to him by the respondent. Now again he has allegedly procured Rs.1,70,000/- as loan from Bhalla Jewellers for the accused, knowing that the earlier amount of Rs. 2 lacs has not been paid by the respondent to him. It is highly improbable that once the previous amount has not been paid to him by the respondent, why he would incur another loan for him. The factum of taking loan from Bhalla Jewellers was also not proved on record. There is no document on record to show the liability of respondent towards the applicant.
In the circumstances, the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. In fact there is no infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. It is settled law even if second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused. In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured KUMAR SUMIT 2014.11.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-452-MA of 2013 -4- an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.
Accordingly, the leave to appeal declined.
Dismissed.
27.10.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
KUMAR SUMIT
2014.11.12 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document