Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Sidhu Beej Bhandar vs Gurdeep Singh on 20 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165750
2023:PHHC:165750
CRM-A-1139-2023 1
226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1139-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.12.2023
M/s Sidhu Beej Bhandar
.....Applicant-Appellant
Versus
Gurdeep Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: - Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant
None for the respondent.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
CRM-35383-2023
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the accompanying application.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the
delay in filing the accompanying application is condoned.
CRM-A-1139-2023
1. The present application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of acquittal dated 22.05.2023 passed by learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dabwali, Sirsa in Criminal Complaint bearing No.
NACT/521/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter 'NI Act').
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is in the business of wheat,
cotton and commission agency at Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District
Sisra. The instant complaint has been registered by Manjinder Singh, proprietor of
the petitioner-firm. On 19.12.2016 the respondent-accused approached the
complainant and requested for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- for household needs.
Thereafter, the respondent visited the shop of the complainant and sold cotton crop
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165750
2023:PHHC:165750
for a sum of Rs. 1,35,080/-. The respondent approached the complainant again on
18.01.2017 to purchase fertilizers and raised a demand of Rs. 75,000/- and the
same was given to the respondent by the complainant through RTGS. On
29.06.2017, the respondent approached the complainant again and demanded for a
sum of Rs. 6,41,000/- to be lent to him as loan. The said amount was transferred to
the respondent through NEFT. At the end of the year, Rs. 5,90, 920/- was found
standing against the respondent. The respondent failed to repay the complainant in
spite of involvement of the panchayat. However, on 19.05.2018, the respondent
requested the complainant to loan him an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 and considering
the respondent to be in genuine need, the complainant issued a cheque dated
19.05.2018 for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. At the time of receiving
the cheque, the respondent assured the complainant that he will sell his upcoming
crop through his agency, which he later failed to comply with. In order to
discharge his liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 741701 dated
21.10.2018 for Rs. 6,00,000/- as part payment in favour of the complainant. The
same was dishonoured on presentation for encashment vide memo dated
23.10.2018 with the remarks 'funds insufficient.' Thereafter, on 31.10.2018, a
legal noticed was issued to the respondent. However, the respondent failed to
make the requisite payment and the present complaint was filed, in which he was
acquitted vide the impugned Judgment.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing
the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner, in
order to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, has only examined
Manjinder Singh, the proprietor of the petitioner-firm who presented computerised
account books as (Ex C2 to Ex C5). Admittedly, there is a pre-existing arhant
relationship between the complainant and the respondent, as such, if a payment
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165750
2023:PHHC:165750
has been made by the petitioner to the accused, it cannot be assumed to be a loan,
unless otherwise proved. The account books exhibited by the petitioner cannot
equated with a promissory note. No explanation was presented by the petitioner as
to why loans were given without recording the same in form of an agreement or
pronote. Further, the account books showing the acknowledgment of the amount
received do not bear the signature of the respondent.
4. Moreover, the petitioner did not record the sale of cotton for Rs.
1,35,080/- on 06.01.2017 in the prescribed 'J' form, a copy of which is supposed
to be kept by the each farmer. The petitioner has failed to produce the 'J' form on
record which reflects that they were not conducting business in accordance with
the law. Furthermore, the respondent has made a specific aversion that the
petitioner kept two blank cheques as security and one of them been misused by the
petitioner to file the present case. As such, the respondent has been successful in
rebutting the statutory presumptions of Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
5. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on
the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subJect to the settled law that where
two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the
accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other
pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional
advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour,
while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. (See
H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of
2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram v. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and
Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division
bench of this Court in the Judgment passed in State of Haryana Vs. Ankit and
others passed CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165750
2023:PHHC:165750
presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by
the trial Court.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any
perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which
warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present
application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
20.12.2023
AJay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165750
4 of 4
