Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Everest Automobiles vs M/S Rajit Enterprises on 10 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
267
2024:PHHC:051877
CRM-A-975-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 10th, 2024
M/s Everest Automobiles
.....Applicant
Versus
M/s Rajit Enterprises
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') is
impugning the judgment dated 05.05.2023 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Rewari, whereby the respondent
(hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was acquitted of the charges
framed against him under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in
complaint No.NI Act/952/2016.
2. As per the allegations outlined in the complaint in
question, the complainant firm was dealing in Sonalika Tractors and
had some business transactions with the accused firm, for which
meticulous accounting records were maintained by the complainant
firm. In consideration of delivery of tractors, the accused issued a
cheque bearing No.000078 dated 17.10.2016 amounting to
`13,67,612/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Khairthal (Rajasthan).
Upon presentation of the cheque by the complainant, it was returned
vide return memo dated 18.10.2016 with the remarks
'Insufficient Funds'. Subsequently, the complainant sent a legal notice
CRM-A-975-2023 (O&M) -2-
dated 15.11.2016 to the accused demanding payment, but to no avail.
The learned trial Court, after examining the evidence and other material
on record, acquitted the accused. The learned trial Court concluded that
the complainant had failed to substantiate its case against the accused,
as there was an absence of credible evidence demonstrating that the
accused had issued the cheque in question to settle any legally
enforceable debt or liability.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has
reiterated the allegations outlined in the complaint in question. He has
asserted that the complainant firm was engaged in the trading of
Sonalika Tractors and, upon orders placed by the accused firm, it
supplied two tractors amounting to `9,70,740/-. Additionally,
remaining balance of `13,67,612/- inclusive of interest, was owed by
the accused. It has been still further contended that the trial Court
overlooked that the accused had admitted to his signatures on the
cheque in question raising a presumption under Section 139 of the Act
in favour of the complainant. Furthermore, it has been argued that the
accused failed to rebut this presumption by way of any cogent
evidence. Furthermore, the assertion of the defence that the cheque had
been given as a security, which was in turn misused by the
complainant, was not supported by any cogent evidence, which was
ignored by the learned trial Court. It has also been emphasized by the
learned counsel that the lack of any initiative by the accused in
re-claiming the cheque or providing evidence of such a request,
let alone pursuing action regarding the alleged misuse was also ignored
by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that
the trial Court has dismissed the complaint in question primarily only
CRM-A-975-2023 (O&M) -3-
on the purported failure of the complainant to prove a legally
enforceable debt.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that
inadvertently invoices (Annexures A-1 and A-2) could not be produced
during trial, for which his application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. ought
to be allowed so he could lead additional evidence to prove these
crucial documents with respect to the existence of a legally enforceable
debt.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused
the relevant material on record.
6. It is evident that the complainant failed to produce any
documentary evidence, notably ledger accounts, tractor bills, or even
delivery receipts, to substantiate the purchase of the tractors by the
accused. The invoices, which would have been the most compelling
evidence of a legally enforceable debt, were conspicuously absent.
Additionally, the complainant did not even produce any account books
containing sale entries by it or any acknowledgement of the purchase of
the tractors.
7. Although the applicant has now, at a highly belated stage,
sought to introduce additional evidence through an application under
Section 391 Cr.P.C., its too late in the day for the applicant to wake up
from his slumber; the complainant has failed to satisfy this Court and to
justify as to why these documents were not produced during trial.
This Court cannot condone such dilatory tactics, especially considering
that the invoices were already in the possession of the complainant
during trial and as to why there were not produced at the relevant time.
8. As a sequel to be the above, this Court has no hesitation in
CRM-A-975-2023 (O&M) -4-
affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, whereby the
complaint in question was dismissed on the ground that the
complainant had failed to prove that the cheque in question had been
issued for a valid consideration so as to discharge a legally enforceable
debt.
9. The application for grant of leave to appeal stands
dismissed.
April 10th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
