Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naval Kishore vs Brij Mohan Lal on 2 April, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM A 990-MA of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM A 990-MA of 2011
Date of decision:2.4.2012
Naval Kishore
...Petitioner
Versus
Brij Mohan Lal
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge is to the judgment dated 25.8.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 406 and 420, IPC.
The complainant is the sole proprietor of M/s Pooja Woolen Industries and the accused/respondent is a commission ageny. It is not disputed that they have business dealings in manufacturing of high class fascinating woolen blankets, shawls, melton, tweeds and velour. The accused admitted that, the complainant sold and supplied various goods worth several lacs of rupees to different parties on an undertaking given by the accused. He received the payments after making sales and admitted that he was under obligation to pay Rs.6,18,753/- to the complainant but he did not make the payment. Hence the complaint was filed.
The complainant while appearing as CW1, admitted in his cross-examination that on 29.4.2006 bills and vouchers from which CRM A 990-MA of 2011 2 he made entries i.e. Exhibits P9 to P14 did not tally with the original bills Exhibits D1 to D5. The statement of accounts was made from the bills Exhibits D1 to D5. However, the names in Exhibits D1 to D5 did not tally with Exhibits P9 to P14. The liability of the accused is thus not made out. The complainant, CW1, on one hand stated that Exhibits P2 to P7 were written by the accused in a room of Amandeep Hospital. But thereafter he deposed that Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 were written by the accused in the premises of different parties in his presence. Thus, CW1 no where deposed that his son Raghav, CW2, was also present when these documents were executed. As per CW2, documents were executed in a hospital at Hyderabad. There is a contradiction in the statements made by CW1 and CW2, who are father and son. There is no evidence led by the complainant to show that there was any correspondence with the parties at Hyderabad to whom he had supplied the goods, which were ultimately misappropriated by the accused.
The complainant did not deny that he had received a cheque dated 5.7.2001 amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- and the said cheque was duly encahsed.
In view of the contradictory statements of CW1 and CW2 and the account bills Exhibit P1 to P7 did not correspond to Exhibits D1 to D5, the impugned judgment dated 25.8.2011 does not require any interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
2.4.2012 (RITU BAHRI) mks JUDGE