Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardip Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 November, 2023
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRR-2813-2010 -1-
2023:PHHC:153612
274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2813-2010
Decided on : 30.11.2023
Hardip Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.05.2010
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which appeal preferred by
respondent No.2 against the judgment dated 12.01.2009 of the trial Court was
allowed and she was acquitted of the charges framed against her under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act') in
complaint case titled as Hardip Singh vs. Sukhwinder Kaur and another.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter referred
to as 'complainant) inter alia contends that based on the evidence led before the
learned trial Court including his oral testimony, it was evident that the accused-
respondent had purchased gold ornaments from his shop on credit for a sum of
Rs.56,000/-. Additionally, the respondent-accused had also received
Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for purchasing some other items related to
2023:PHHC:153612
the forthcoming marriage of her sister, which was to be solemnized on
02.08.1998. Subsequently, on 17.08.1998, respondents-accused paid Rs.6,000/-
in cash to the complainant and also issued a cheque bearing No.103539 drawn
on Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of the complainant to settle the
remaining amount, which she owed to him.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that despite
sufficient cogent evidence having been adduced indicating that the respondents-
accused Sukhwinder Kaur as well as Tajinder Singh had issued the
aforementioned cheque Ex.A-4 from their account to settle their legal debt and
obligations towards the complainant, amounting to Rs.2 lakhs, the Appellate
Court erroneously set aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court
wherein the respondent-accused had been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-accused has
vehemently disputed and opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite and
prayed for dismissal of the instant petition. It has been argued that the impugned
judgment is a well reasoned one and does not warrant any interference. It has
been further contended that as per the allegations levelled in the complaint,
which had been filed under Section 138 of the Act, allegedly on 10.02.1999, the
respondent-accused had approached the complainant for purchase of gold
jewellery and had purchased items worth Rs.56,000/-; she had also borrowed a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash. A civil suit related to the same cheque in question
was dismissed by the Civil Court. Furthermore, learned counsel has submitted
that the allegations levelled in the complaint were not supported by any evidence
2023:PHHC:153612
much less any documentary evidence. However, the trial Court had erroneously
convicted the respondent-accused based on a presumption under Section 139 of
the Act though this presumption under Section 139 of the Act was effectively
countered during trial by the respondent-accused. Additionally, the evidence
was also adduced during trial that the cheque in question was part of the cheque
book, which had been lost and qua whom, a report had also been made to the
police by way of a DDR. This fact as per the learned counsel for the
respondent-accused had been over-looked by the trial court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
material available on record.
6. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint in question, on
02.08.1998 respondent-accused along with Tajinder Singh approached the
complainant to purchase gold jewellery, worth Rs.56,000/-, which was then
purchased from his shop. Additionally, on a request made by the respondent-
accused Rs.1,50,000/- was also given for the marriage of the sister of the
respondent-accused by the complainant. Subsequently, on 17.08.1998, the
respondent-accused paid Rs.6000/- in cash and issued a cheque in the sum of
Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant. However, on presentation in the bank, the cheque
was dishonoured due to the payment being stopped by the drawer. Following
this, the complainant issued a legal notice on 27.01.1999 demanding payment,
which remained unfulfilled by the respondent-accused. Consequently, the
complaint was filed.
7. During trial, the complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1.
He admitted during his cross-examination that neither was he maintaining
2023:PHHC:153612
records for the gold ornaments that he had been making for sales. However, he
claimed to keep a record of the gold stored in his possession in a stock register
and sale books of his shop. However, during trial, he failed to produce any such
stock register, bill books etc. despite taking adjournments before the trial court.
Furthermore, as per the complainant, all the transactions made in his shop had
not been documented but were only oral transactions. He did not even place on
record any document showing his income tax returns much less for the year
1999 or even the details of the gold, which he had supposedly purchased and
which was then used by him for preparing gold ornaments for sale in his shop.
Hence, his claim of selling gold ornaments worth Rs.56,000/- and also
advancing a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent-accused, without any
documentation comes across as being highly unnatural and implausible, more so
since he was a goldsmith, running a business.
8. As per the allegations, co-accused Tajinder Singh had signed the
cheque in question, which had been handed over to him by both the accused,
however, it has not been disputed that Tajinder Singh was in no way related or
linked to co-accused Sukhwinder Kaur and hence, there was no occasion for the
cheque in question to be given to the complainant and that too bearing the
signatures of Tajinder Singh.
9. This Court, therefore, concurs with the findings recorded by the
learned Appellate Court that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the
testimony of the complainant comes across as most untrustworthy. It needs to
be emphasized that presumption in evidence under Section 139 of the Act can be
rebutted not only by the defence evidence but also through facts revealed during
2023:PHHC:153612
the cross-examination of a complainant, which in the case in hand is clearly
discernible.
10. As a sequel to the above, the present petition being devoid of any
merit stands dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
30.11.2023
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
