Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Pal Singh vs Jagdish Singh on 8 March, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.1479-SBA of 2006 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.1479-SBA of 2006
Date of Decision: 8 - 3 - 2010
Surinder Pal Singh .....Appellant
v.
Jagdish Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: None for the parties.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Surinder Pal Singh son of Joginder Singh had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') against Jagdish Singh son of Gurdial Singh. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa vide judgment dated 12.4.2005 had acquitted accused-respondent Jagdish Singh. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
The appellant had instituted the complaint against the accused- respondent stating that accused-respondent being the sole proprietor of Super Mech. Works, Ludhiana issued a cheque bearing No.196620 dated 18.10.1999 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. It was stated that the cheque was issued in the discharge of liability of re-payment of the money advanced by the complainant. The complainant presented the above said cheque to his Crl. Appeal No.1479-SBA of 2006 [2] banker, namely, Punjab & Sind Bank, Sirsa for encashment. The said Bank informed in writing to the complainant that account of the accused- respondent had been closed, therefore, the cheque could not be encashed. It was stated in the complaint that complainant had issued a legal notice on 22.11.1999 as required under Section 138 of the Act.
The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa on 9.10.2001 served a notice of accusation upon the accused-respondent.
Complainant Surinder Pal Singh appeared as PW1. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he had received the memo Ex.P4, from his bank regarding non encashment of cheque on 11.11.1999 and notice Ex.P1 was posted on 29.11.1999.
Joginder Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Punjab & Sind Bank, Sirsa appeared as PW2. Thereafter, the complainant closed his evidence.
Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him.
The trial Court had acquitted the accused-respondent primarily on the following two grounds:-
(i) The memo Ex.P4 regarding the cheque having been dis-
honoured was received by the complainant on 11.11.1999. Notice dated 22.11.1999 Ex.P1, as per postal receipt Ex.P2, was despatched on 29.11.1999. The Court held that mandatory period of 15 days for issuance of the notice came to an end on 27.11.1999 and, thus, the notice was issued beyond the stipulated period. Therefore, that being a material technical flaw, accused was entitled to acquittal.
(ii) In para 19 of the judgment, the trial Court had observed as under:-
Crl. Appeal No.1479-SBA of 2006 [3]
"19. The plain perusal of his first four lines of the chief- examination of the complainant shows that he is talking of money advanced on 20.10.99 when the cheque in question is dated 18.10.99. Further, he is talking of demanding money after six months whereas as per his own averments he had already presented the cheque for collection on 18.10.99. Even the circumstances in which the cheque was issued had not been proved by the complainant to be in discharge of his legally and enforceable debt or liability. It was further for the complainant to prove as to in what circumstances the cheque was issued."
Both the above said reasons of the trial Court for recording acquittal of the accused-respondent are valid.
Nobody has caused appearance for the appellant on 25.2.2010. Even today also, nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. In para 3 of the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that it is factually incorrect that notice was sent on 29.11.1999. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. The view formulated by the trial Court is the one which is possible. No interference is warranted in the present appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 8, 2010. JUDGE RC