Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar Baranwal vs Neelu on 16 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014261
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-A-669-2020
Date of Decision: 16.01.2024
ANIL KUMAR BARANWAL ... APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEELU ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. By filing the present application, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. the
applicant/appellant has assailed the judgment dated 03.01.2020, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fardibad, dismissing the complaint and acquitting
the respondent-accused therein of the notice of accusation served upon him
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').
2. It is contended that the judgment passed by the trial Court suffers
from grave illegality, perversity and the same is based upon surmises and
conjectures and as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the
complainant has duly and fully proved the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I.
Act, 1881, but the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by
the complainant on record and returned a finding of acquittal while dismissing
the complaint in question. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act,
1881 is very strong in favour of the complainant in the present case, but still the
impugned judgment has been passed ignoring all well settled legal positions and
as such, the judgment suffers from grave injustice, illegality and perversity.
Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014261
3. Heard.
4. I have perused the impugned judgment carefully and have also
gone meticulously through the findings recorded by the trial Court. Upon
perusal of the same, I do not find any perversity or illegality therein. The
complainant has stated that the respondent/accused has induced the complainant
for purchasing a plot and an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was advanced by the
complainant to the respondent-accused as earnest money, which itself is
sufficient to cause a dent in the version of his complaint, as the complainant has
not produced on record the original documents. Even the complainant has
failed to prove on record as to why the signatures of the respondent-accused had
been taken at three places on each and every document whereas the signature of
deponent on an affidavit is required only at two places, which is sufficient for
this Court to infer that the signatures of the respondent-accused had been taken
by the complainant at some blank papers. Moreover, the complainant himself
admitted in his cross-examination that respondent-accused had signed on blank
papers before writing on the same. Furthermore, the attesting witnesses as well
as the scribe of these papers are also not examined by the complainant to prove
the same. All the allegations of the complainant are completely in air and have
no force at all. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent-accused has
raised a probable defence which is worthy credence, especially when, the
complainant failed to prove any legally enforceable debt.
5. It is well settled law that presumption under Section 118 and 139
of the N.I. At, 1881 is that the cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability.
This presumption is rebuttable. Standard of proof required for rebutting such
presumption is not as high as that of the prosecution. So long as the accused can
make his version reasonably probable, the burden of rebutting the presumption
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014261
would stand discharged. In the present case also, the respondent-accused has
raised a probable defence. Hence, it can safely be held that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
6 It is a settled law as held in C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair,
2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 750 that even if a second view on appreciation of
evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused.
In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the
presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an
acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the
inference of guilt is irresistible.
7 On perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court dated
03.01.2020, this Court is of the considered view that the said judgment well
reasoned and is based upon proper appreciation of evidence led by the parties.
The ground of acquittal, as has been culled out by the trial Court, cannot be said
to be faulty, contrary to law or requiring any interference by this Court. The
accused-respondent has been duly able to rebut the presumption under Section
139 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and as such, he has rightly been acquittal of the notice
of accusation served upon her.
8. Accordingly, the leave to appeal stands declined.
9. Dismissed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
16.01.2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014261
3 of 3
