Harwinderpal Singh vs Resham Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11608 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810




219
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                                                 CRM-A-1574-2019 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision: 02.08.2023


HARWINDERPAL SINGH
                                                     ...Applicant/complainant

                                    Versus

RESHAM SINGH
                                                       ...Respondent/accused

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present :   Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate
            for the applicant.

HARSH BUNGER, J.

The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking grant of leave to appeal against

the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, whereby complaint filed by the applicant-

complainant under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (for short `the N.I. Act') has been dismissed and the

respondent has been acquitted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-complainant filed

a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act,

alleging that in the month of November-2015, upon the asking of

respondent-accused, the applicant-complainant advanced him the financial

assistance of Rs.1,10,000/-.As per the applicant-complainant, when he

demanded the above said amount from the respondent-accused, he in order

to discharge his aforesaid legal liability, issued a cheque bearing

No.172513 dated 20.03.2016 for a sum ofRs.1,10,000/- drawn on his bank

1 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

i.e. State Bank of Patiala in favour of the applicant-complainant; however,

when the applicant-complainant presented the above said cheque to his

banker forencashment, the same was dishonoured by the banker of the

respondent-accusedvide Memo dated 18.04.2016 with the remarks "Funds

Insufficient".A legal notice dated 02.05.2016 wasstatedly served upon the

respondent-accusedbut despite the receipt of the legal notice, the payment

of cheque in questionwas not made within stipulated period.Thereafter, the

appellant-complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 read with

Section 142 of the N.I. Act beforethe learned trial Court.

3. On the basis of preliminary evidence, respondent-accused was

summoned. Subsequently, notice ofaccusation for commission of an

offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe N.I. Act was served upon the

respondent-accused,to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The applicant-complainant, in order to prove his case,

examined himself as CW1 by way of his duly sworn affidavit in the form of

Ex.CW1/A and tendered the following documents :-

                   Ex.C1    Cheque     bearing    No.172513      dated
                            20.03.2016 amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-.

                   Ex.C2    Memo dated 18.04.2016


                   Ex.C3    Legal Notice dated 02.05.2016


                   Ex.C4    Postal Receipt

5. After the closure of evidence of applicant-complainant,

statement of the respondent-accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating

circumstances against him and pleaded innocence.

2 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

6. In defence evidence, the accused-respondent did not examine

any witness and his evidence was closed.

7. The Court below, after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, framed the following point for determination :-

"(A) Whether the complainant has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 ?"

8. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence,

dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant vide judgment

dated 21.05.2018 and acquitted the respondent.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-complainant and

gone through the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2018 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga and also the case file.

10. Here, it would be apposite to refer to few judicial

pronouncements regarding the scope and parameters, in which, interference

can be made in a judgment of acquittal.

11. In 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9)

SCC 479', Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier

judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in

a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when thereare "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate

3 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."

12. In the case of 'Arulvelu v. State represented by the Public

Prosecutor, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 638', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed as under:-

"39. In GhureyLal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, a two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Bhandari, J.) was a member had an occasion to deal with most of the cases referred in this judgment. This Court provided guidelines for the Appellate Court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused. The following principles emerge from the cases above :

1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court.

The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial courthad the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

4 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.

40. This Court in a recently delivered judgment State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh, 2009(11) SCALE 699 again examined judgments of this Court and laid down that "An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused..."

13. In 'Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR

(Criminal) 748', Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where, in a case, two

views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by

the Court.

14. Coming to the case in hand; the learned trial Court, after

appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-

" 12. In his drive to establish the alleged culpability of the accused, complainant predominantly banks upon the presumption so housed under section 139 of the Act. Now it is to be seen that whether in the instant case the accused has been able to rebut this presumption or not and whether the offence against the accused could be proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant had stepped into the witness box as CW1 and had reiterated the assertions contained in the complaint in substantial terms and claimed that a sum of Rs.1,10,000 was legally due and recoverable from the accused. In order to discharge his legal liability, accused issued the above said Ex.C1 i.e. Cheque bearing no.172513 dated 20.03.2016 for amount of Rs.1,10,000 drawn on his bank at State bank of Patiala, in favour of the complainant. On the presentation of the

5 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

cheque Ex.C1, the same stood dishonoured with the remarks `Insufficient funds', through above said memo Ex.C2 dated 18.04.2016. Notice of demand dated 02.05.2016 i.e. Ex.C3 was thereafter issued by the complainant upon the accused but the accused failed to pay the demanded amount. The postal receipt had been proved as Ex.C4. Learned counsel for the complainant had argued that the presumption so embodied under section 139 of the Act stood invoked. Consequently it is to be presumed by the Court that the complainant had received the cheque in question for the discharge of liability from the accused.

13. In tandem, the court also recounts the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the accused. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that in fact, the complainant is running the business of commission agency and the accused used to sell his crops on his commission agency from the year 2007- 2010. The complainant had received the three blank signed cheques from the accused at the time of giving advance to the accused. When he requested to return the blank signed cheques, the complainant has assured that the same has been torned. He further argued that the complainant has also filed complaint to the SSP, Moga against the accused in which he admitted that the accused used to sell his crops on his commission agency. Therefore, the complainant initiated the false complaint. There is no legal recoverable amount of complainant against him. The complainant misused the security cheque taken by in lieu of the price of crops taken by the accused from the complainant in advance.

14. Having recounted the entire gamut of the version and the corresponding evidence so adduced by the complainant, the Court engages with the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the accused essentially aimed at dislodging the presumption envisaged under

6 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

Section 139 of the Act. On the first count, it was contended that the complaint was infested with towering ambiguity, being vague to an extent that the version of the complainant was rendered implausible as a whole. Further to add to the woes of the complainant, in his cross examination, the complainant had made certain startling and revealing submissions which were thoroughly deleterious to the drive of the complainant and correspondingly reinforced the defence of the accused. Evaluation of the cross examination of the complainant instantly validate the assertions of learned Counsel for the accused that he is running the business of commission agency. Although, the complainant has stated in his cross examination that the accused was not selling his crops on his agency. But, he has also admitted his signature over his statement given in the complaint before the SSP Moga wherein, he has mentioned that he is running the commission agency and accused Resham Singh was selling his crops in his agency. In the year 2015, the accused had taken the advance of Rs.1,10,000/- and in lieu of that, he has issued cheque in question. So, the complainant indirectly admitted the relationship with accused as pleaded by accused in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Secondly, the complainant has not even bothered to examine Jagjit Singh and Lakhbir Singh in whose presence the cheque in question was given to the complainant as admitted by him in his cross examination. This aspect had been conveniently avoided by the complainant.

15. The accused has relied upon the various applications moved by the complainant against accused Resham Singh Ex. D7, Jagdev Singh Ex. D8, Janbar Singh Ex. D12 and the report of the inquiry officer on the said application Ex.D11, which clearly shows that the complainant is running the business of

7 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

commission agency. The accused Resham Singh alongwith one Jagdev Singh and Janbar Singh used to sell their crops to the complainant. The complainant used to lend money to his customers including the accused. The complainant has nowhere placed on record any licence for money lending.

xxx xxx xxx In the present case also, the complainant did not mention in his complaint that he is running the business of commission agency which he has admitted in his cross examination. Further, from the perusal of Ex.D7, Ex.D10 and Ex.D11, it is clear that the accused used to sell his crops to the complainant. Further, as admitted by the complainant in his cross examination, that the cheque in question was given in presence of Jagjit Singh and Lakhbir Singh who have not been examined by the complainant.

16. Having recount the entire gamut of the version and the corresponding evidence so adduced by the complainant, the court engages withthe argument so raised by the learned counsel for the accused essentially aimed atdislodging the presumption envisaged under section 139 of the Act.It is settledlaw that accused can rebut such a presumption by raising a probable defence. The standard proof which is required to rebut the presumption and is "preponderanceof probabilities" and inference of preponderance of probability can be drawn, not only from the material on record, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies, Further the accused need not to lead positive evidence to rebut the presumption of section 139 rather the same can be done on the basisof cross examination of the witness of the complainant. In this regard , this courtis supported by the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case tiled as M/s Kalpana Mines and

8 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

Minerals vs M/s Muneer Enterproses, 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 306.

17. The unnatural floundering renders credibility to the version of the accused as raised through suggestions and in his plea under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, that the blank signed cheque of the accused had been misused by the complainant.

18.Hence, after compounding the afore referred deliberations, the Court concludes that in the present case the accused has been able to establish that the cheque Ex. C1 hadbeen misused by the complainant given by theaccused to the complainant .The presumption so encased under section 139 of the Act therefore stands dislodged, the version of the complainant being implausible and unconvincing. Complainant fails to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the point for determination is decided against the complainant and the accused is acquitted of the notice served upon him. File be consigned to the record room."

15. In the instant case, the applicant-complainant filed the

complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, on the plea that he had

advanced an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the respondent-accused in

November, 2015 and when the applicant-complainant demanded the said

amount from respondent-accused, then in order to discharge his legal

liability, he issued a cheque in dispute, which was dishonoured. On the

other hand, the respondent-accused had taken a stand that applicant-

complainant is running the business of Commission Agency and

respondent-accused used to sell his crops on his Commission Agency. The

applicant-complainant is stated to have received three blank signed cheques

from the respondent-accused, at the time of giving him advance, and when

he requested for return of the said blank signed cheques then the applicant-

9 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

complainant had assured that the same had been torn. It is the stand of

respondent-accused that the applicant-complainant had filed a complaint to

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga against him, wherein the

applicant-complainant had admitted that the respondent-accused used to

sell his crops on his Commission Agency. It appears that the applicant-

complainant has admitted his signatures over his statement given in the

complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga; wherein, he

had mentioned that he is running the business of Commission Agency and

respondent-accused was selling his crops in his Agency. Further, the

cheque in dispute was stated to have been given by the complainant in the

presence of Jagjit Singh and Lakhbir Singh; however, the said persons were

not examined by the complainant. The fact that the complainant is running

the business of Commission Agency is reflected from the various

applications moved by the applicant-complainant against the respondent-

accused-Resham Singh, one Jagdev Singh and one Janbar Singh,

i.e. Exhibits D-7, D-8 and D-12, respectively and also the report of the

Inquiry Officer (Exhibit D-11) on the said applications. The trial Court has

observed that the applicant-complainant has not placed on record any

licence for money lending.

16. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find that the

learned Court below has given the findings by correctly appreciating the

evidence in right perspective and accused-respondent has been rightly

acquitted. In no way, the impugned judgment can be held as perverse or

against the evidence. The appellant-complainant has failed to point out any

substantial or compelling reasons for interfering in the impugned judgment

dated 21.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga.

17. No other argument was raised.

10 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

18. In viewof the above discussion and also the legal position

indicated above, the instant applicationis bereft of any merit and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

19. All pending application/s, if any, shall stand closed.

August 2nd, 2023                                     (HARSH BUNGER)
Gurpreet/Apurva                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:                 Yes/No
Whether reportable:                        Yes/No




                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110810

                                11 of 11