Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs Anoop Singh on 2 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
234 CRM-A-974-MA-2018
Date of Decision: 02.07.2024
Sanjeev Kumar
....Appellant
Versus
Anoop Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
----
Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate and
Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
Sandeep Moudgil, J.(Oral)
1. The learned counsel for the appellant, by filing this appeal
alongwith application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to appeal,
has assailed the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Yamuna Nagar, dated 15/02/2018 which dismissed the complaint and
acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges framed under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: the
accused having alleged dealings of Rs 5,30,000/- with complainant presented
cheques bearing No. 204848 and No. 224848 dated 28/04/2016 in the favour
of the complainant to discharge his legal liability. Upon presentation, the
cheque's were dishonoured by the bank with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS" vide memo dated 29/04/2016. Subsequently, a statutory legal notice
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082328
was issued to the accused dated 17/05/2016, to which there was no response.
3. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court made an error
in law by dismissing the complaint without considering that the respondent-
accused had admitted to issuing the cheque's bearing number No. 204848 and
No. 224848 dated 28/04/2016 and did not contest the signatures on the
cheque.
4. I have heard the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel
and examined the case records.
5. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, 1973, the respondent
denied the incriminating evidence presented by the appellant but
acknowledged that the cheque bore his signature. He asserted that he had no
legal liability towards the complainant. The respondent contended that the
blank signed cheques were given as a security and were also acquired by the
complainant under the pretext of Security Cheques.
6. Another point to be considered is that, why the accused hadn't
filled the amount due in discharge of his liability and left it unfilled which
raises serious doubt in the story of the complainant.
7. This court finds no reason to doubt the respondent's claims,
especially given that the complainant has failed to show that the sum of Rs
2,68,000/- was released in cash in favour of the accused in lieu of the
agreement Ex C1, dated 31/12/2015. Furthermore, the complainant failed to
prove any legally enforceable debt against the accused, relying only on Ex C1,
same is also disputed by the accused and was not substantiated by the
appellant.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082328
8. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgement rendered by
this court in CRM-A-492-MA-2012 titled as "Suresh versus Narender
Gautam" wherein it was held that if the complainant fails to prove his claim
through any receipt or pro note advanced by him to the accused then
presumption of innocence goes in favour of the accused.
9. As established in "C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair, 2002 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 750" even if another interpretation of the evidence is
possible, the Court should not interfere with an acquittal. In cases of acquittal,
the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence: first, the initial
presumption of innocence, and second, the fact that the accused has already
been acquitted. The Court should only interfere if the inference of guilt is
unmistakable.
10. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri dated 15/02/2018, this Court is of the considered view that
the said judgment is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence led by
the parties. The ground of acquittal, as has been culled out by the trial Court,
cannot be said to be faulty, requiring any interference by this Court. The
allegations have been found to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
evidence which has been led by the prosecution and, therefore, the benefit of
doubt has rightly been granted to the accused-respondent. Accordingly, the
leave to appeal stands declined.
11. Upon reviewing the trial court's judgment, this Court concludes
that the judgment is based on a proper evaluation of the evidence presented by
both parties. The trial court's grounds for acquittal are based on strong
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082328
and cogent material examined by it which do not warrant any interference.
The prosecution's evidence did not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable
doubt, and thus, the benefit of the doubt was rightly extended to the accused-
respondent.
12. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment dated 15/02/2018, the leave to appeal is declined.
13. The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed
declining leave to appeal.
14. Ordered accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
02.07.2024
Varinder Prashad
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
