Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar vs Ishwar Singh on 3 May, 2016
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.32940 of 2015 in/and
CRM No.A-1670-MA of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: May 03, 2016
Surender Kumar
...Applicant
Versus
Ishwar Singh (Fauji)
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sandeep Berwal, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.32940 of 2015 Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 8 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.
CRM No.A-1670-MA of 2015 Applicant-Surender Kumar has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Ishwar Singh (Fauji), challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:14:16 ::: CRM No.A-1670-MA of 2015 -2- appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is also stated that prima facie this is a good case in favour of the complainant-applicant as the judgment of acquittal by the learned Court below is manifestly erroneous. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.
As per the record, the complainant Surender Kumar filed a complaint against accused Ishwar Singh (Fauji) under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant's version, accused in discharge of his legally enforceable liability issued three cheques bearing No.547681, 547684 both dated 10.10.2011 and 547685 dated 12.10.2011 each amounting to `1 lac i.e. total sum of `3 lacs in favour of the complainant, which on presentation for encashment, were returned back unpaid with the remarks 'Insufficient fund'. Legal notice was served upon the accused. When the amount was not paid, then the complaint was filed within time.
Learned JMIC, Kaithal, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 24.07.2015.
I have gone through the judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Kaithal. I find that that the findings given by learned Magistrate are correct, as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse i.e. against the evidence and law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:14:17 ::: CRM No.A-1670-MA of 2015 -3- misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below.
From the record, firstly, I find that there are no particulars, on which date and in which month and year and how many buffaloes have been sold and at which price. At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant improved the version by stating that buffaloes were purchased at many times and cheques in question were issued for particular payments of the price of the buffaloes. As per the findings given by learned JMIC, Kaithal, `2,11,000/- was already given by the accused to the complainant, which is admitted by the complainant. There is no mention in the complaint regarding receiving of amount of `2,11,000/-. Otherwise also, in the legal notice, the complainant has not adjusted this amount and demanded the same, which means that legal notice is also defective and not as per law.
Furthermore, it is admitted by the complainant that notice was not issued on the address on which accused is residing. Rather, the complainant has issued the notice on the incorrect address through registered post. Therefore, the Court held that there is no compliance of issuance of legal notice. In the evidence, it is also there that six buffaloes were purchased by the accused and out of those, two bhakhad buffaloes were returned to the complainant, which fact is also admitted by the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the findings have been given by learned JMIC, Kaithal, while appreciating the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:14:17 ::: CRM No.A-1670-MA of 2015 -4- evidence in right perspective. The impugned judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Kaithal, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.
Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
May 03, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:14:17 :::