Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs Gurmeet Singh on 28 September, 2015
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM-A-1223-MA of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1223-MA of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.09.2015
Anil Kumar
...Applicant
Versus
Gurmeet Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
****
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 applicant has assailed the judgment dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused therein of the charges framed against him under Section 138 read with Section 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').
It is contended that the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint without appreciating the fact that the cheque bearing No. 480624 dated 30.09.2010of Rs. 2,40,000/- issued by the respondent towards discharge of his liability, stood dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The respondent did not reply to the legal notice KUMAR SUMIT 2015.09.29 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-1223-MA of 2015 -2- served upon him by the applicant. The respondent has not denied his signature on the cheque but the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter.
Heard.
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 the genuineness of the claim of the applicant, since the applicant has taken up altogether different stands in his cross examination from the stand taken by him in his complaint and examination in chief. The applicant had concealed the material facts of his being a commission agent and the respondent used to sell his agricultural produce with the firm of the applicant. The applicant had admitted in his cross examination that the amount in question was given to the respondent in the presence of his servant Balwant, however, he has not examined said Balwant to prove this fact.
Even, otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent. No date, month or year was mentioned that when the respondent borrowed the money. Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any document that the applicant being a commission agent had the alleged amount with him, it is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote. KUMAR SUMIT 2015.09.29 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-1223-MA of 2015 -3- There is no document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant. The allegations of the applicant appears to be vague.
In the circumstances, the finding 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/respondent. It is a settled law as has been held in C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 that even if a 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 an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.
Accordingly, the leave to appeal stands declined. Dismissed.
28.09.2015 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
KUMAR SUMIT
2015.09.29 14:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document