Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs Kanta Verma on 13 February, 2015
226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A 389-MA of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 13.02.2015
Manjit Singh ....... Appellant
versus
Kanta Verma ....... Respondent
CRM-A 563-MA of 2012(O&M)
Manjit Singh ....... Appellant
versus
Kanta Verma ....... Respondent
CRM-A 567-MA of 2012(O&M)
Manjit Singh ....... Appellant
versus
Kanta Verma ....... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. R.P.Dhir, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be report in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral)
There are three appeals i.e. CRM-A 389-MA of 2012, CRM-A 563-MA of 2012 and CRM-A 567-MA of 2012 filed against the acquittal of the respondents in three complaints filed under Section 138 of the SHIVANI Negotiable Instruments Act. All these three appeals were accompanied by 2015.02.19 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-A 389-MA of 2012 & connected matters -2- application of condonation of delay of 493, 489 and 477 days respectively. The ground for the delay is that earlier applicant had filed appeals before the Sessions Judge and it was only due to change of law that appeal was not maintainable. Immediately thereafter, the applicant filed the present appeal. The delay is condoned.
The facts stated by learned counsel for the appellant are that he had given an amount of ` 8 lacs to the respondents and she had given three cheques of ` 3 lacs, 3 lacs and 2 lacs respectively but they bounced. Notice was issued. Neither the money was paid nor the reply was given. It was in these circumstances that the complaint was filed and the same was having been dismissed. Thereafter, these appeals i.e. CRM-A 389-MA of 2012, CRM-A 563-MA of 2012 and CRM-A 567-MA of 2012 have been filed.
A perusal of the record reveals that the trial court noticed that the appellant could not satisfactorily explain the source of funds out of which the alleged loan was granted. The appellant was also not able to show what was his relationship with the respondent that he gave her unsecured loan of Rs. 8 lacs which is a heavy amount. Despite having been granted time to present his bank record (to show withdrawal), he refused to do so. The explanation given by the respondents that these cheques had been issued to one Kulwinder Singh who had differences with her son and it was only on the behest of Kulwinder Singh that the present complaint was filed, was accepted by the trial court primarily because the appellant admitted that the aforementioned Kulwinder Singh was friend of his.
In these circumstances, learned counsel had not been able to satisfy the Court with findings of the trial court is illegal. The appeals are SHIVANI 2015.02.19 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-A 389-MA of 2012 & connected matters -3- dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.
13th February, 2015 [AJAY TEWARI]
Shivani Kaushik JUDGE
SHIVANI
2015.02.19 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh