Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar And Sons vs Ivy Industries And Another on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045568
2024:PHHC:045568
CRM-A-1238 of 2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1238 of 2019
Date of decision : April 03, 2024
Ashok Kumar & Sons ....Applicant
VERSUS
IVY Industries and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for the applicant
KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL)
1. The instant application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.,
seeking grant of leave to appeal, has been filed by the present applicant
against the judgment of acquittal dated 2.4.2019, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the respondents have
been acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2. The respondents herein have been summoned to face trial
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the learned
trial court. The allegations which are recorded in the impugned verdict of
acquittal against the respondents are read as under:-
"Accused No. 2 on behalf of the accused no. 1 remained
in dealing terms with the complainant earlier. The
accused no. 2 has pleaded to the complainant that he is
in the need of Rs 5 lakh for his business needs and on
his request complainant paid Rs 5 lakh to the accused
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045568
2024:PHHC:045568
no. 2 through RTGS, which was deposited in the bank
account of the accused. In order to discharge his legal
liability, the accused no. 2 on behalf of accused no. 1
have issued one cheque bearing no. 879177 dated
30.10.2014 for Rs 5 lakh drawn on SBI Branch (04122),
SP, COMM BR, FCPT, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana.
The complainant presented the said cheque, but the said
cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Drawer's
Signature differs' vide cheque return memo dated
9.12.2014. Thereafter, the complainant got issued
notice and requested to make the payment within 15
days. The accused has not made the payment of cheque
amount, hence the instant complaint."
3. The complainant has stepped into witness box as CW1 and
except him, no other witness was examined. The learned trial court after
examining the oral testimony as well as documentary evidence, as produced
by the complainant, concluded that the applicant has failed to prove any
legal liability in which cheque in question was issued..
4. The learned counsel for the applicant, has tried to throw a
challenge to the impugned verdict, but has failed to point out any infirmity
or illegality in it.
5. Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with,
merely because an other view is possible. Upon passing the order of
acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets
reinforced and strengthened, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Harijana Thirupala vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6
SCC 470.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045568
2024:PHHC:045568
6. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere
with the order of acquittal. In sequel, the application for leave to appeal is
hereby dismissed, it being bereft of merit, and, the impugned judgment of
acquittal, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana
is hereby upheld.
( KULDEEP TIWARI )
April 03, 2024 JUDGE
'tiwana'
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
Whether Reportable ? Yes/No
3 of 3
