Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Mahajan vs Mool Raj Gupta on 20 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008623
2024:PHHC:008623
CRM-A-71-2019 1
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-71-2019(O & M)
Date of Decision: 20.01.2024
MANOJ MAHAJAN
...Applicant-Appellant
Versus
MOOL RAJ GUPTA
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-956-2019
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1961
seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the accompanying application
under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay of 66 days in filing the aforesaid application is condoned.
CRM-A-71-2019
1. This instant application under Section 378(4) CrPC is preferred
against the judgement dated 05.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Batala vide which the complaint case No. 99 of 2016 dated
16.02.2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as NI Act) has been dismissed and the present
respondent has been acquitted.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent had
business terms in furtherance of which the respondent in order to discharge his
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008623
2024:PHHC:008623
legal liability towards the applicant, issued a cheque bearing No.3407798 dated
07.01.2016 of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Batala
However, when the applicant presented the said cheque before the bank, it was
dishonoured with remarks 'Insufficient Funds' vide memo dated 12.01.2016. A
demand notice dated 14.01.2016 was served upon the respondent but no
payment was made to him. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred the
above-mentioned complaint before the learned trial Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires from the evidence led
by the applicant before the leaned trial Court that there was no existing legally
enforceable liability of the respondent towards the applicant at the time of
issuance of the cheque in question. Further, the applicant even though alleged
in his complaint that the loan amount was in relation to a business transaction
but he changed his stance in his cross-examination that the said payment was
made to the respondent on account of family relations. It was also admitted by
the applicant that he never made any entry qua the loan amount, i.e.,
Rs.15,00,000/- in his account books and even the date of payment was never
mentioned by him in the aforesaid complaint. Therefore, the learned trial Court
has correctly observed that the applicant miserably failed to prove on record
any legally enforceable debt against the respondent-accused for which the
aforesaid cheque might have been issued in his favour.
4. Furthermore, 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008623
2024:PHHC:008623
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 CRM-A No.3 of
2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence further
gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
5. 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
20.01.2024
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008623
3 of 3
