Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Goel vs Gautam Garg & Anr on 9 February, 2015
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2015.02.13 17:29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 37415 of 2013 and
CRM No. A-623-MA of 2013 (O/M)
Date of decision : 9.2.2015
Ramesh Goel ..... Applicant
Versus
Gautam Garg and another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the applicant.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
-.- -.-
KULDIP SINGH, J.
The present applicant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 345 days in filing the application for leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.7.2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/applicant herein under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC was dismissed. The appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, on 17.7.2013.
The brief controversy which needs to be noticed is that the complainant/applicant herein had taken a loan of Rs.1.50 lacs from one Gautam Garg (accused/respondent No.1 herein) and handed SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.02.13 17:29 CRM No. 37415 of 2013 and -2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-623-MA of 2013 (O/M) over three cheques bearing No. 181702, 181703 and 181704, drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Ambala City as security. Suffice to say that according to the complainant/applicant herein, he had returned an amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs against three cheques and Rs. 30,000/- were returned in August, 2004. Accused/respondent No. 1 herein issued a receipt on the letter pad of the complainant/applicant herein for an amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs against the said three blank cheques, wherein cheques No. 281704, 281705, 281706 instead of 181702, 181703, 181704 were mentioned. It is stated that accused/respondent No. 2 herein after issuing legal notice dated 16.12.2004 filed a case against the complainant/applicant herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for cheque No. 281702 dated 15.11.2004 for Rs. 50,000/-. The said cheque was never issued to accused/respondent No. 2 herein by the applicant. Accused/respondent No. 2 herein is the real brother of accused/respondent No. 1 herein.
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, came to the conclusion that the plea of the complainant/applicant herein is that three cheques were issued in lieu of the said loan and wrong cheque numbers were mentioned in the receipt (Ex.C5). However, it could be a clerical error and does not make out that any cheating was done. The order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, dated 10.7.2012 was upheld in appeal SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.02.13 17:29 CRM No. 37415 of 2013 and -3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-623-MA of 2013 (O/M) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 17.7.2013. In this way, there are concurrent findings of two Courts below.
I am of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the order dated 10.7.2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, as well as the order dated 17.7.2013, passed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Therefore, there is no ground to grant leave to appeal.
It being so, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 345 days to file leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 9.2.2015 sjks