Punjab-Haryana High Court
Supreme Mobiles Limited vs Munna Singh on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037875
2024:PHHC:037875
CRM-A-696-MA-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 CRM-A-696-MA-2017 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
SUPREME MOBILES LIMITED
...APPLICANT
V/S
MUNNA SINGH
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
***
Present: - Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
CRM-12077-2017
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
seeking condonation of delay of 190 days in filing
the accompanying application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.').
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay of 190 days in filing the said application is condoned.
CRM-A-696-MA-2017
The present application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.07.2016 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, in a criminal complaint case, bearing no.
1418-II of 2014, filed under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter 'NI Act' for brevity).
2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant-complainant is a limited
company under the Companies Act and the respondent-accused is an employee
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037875
2024:PHHC:037875
of the said company. As per the complaint, the respondent being an employee
of the applicant-company used to receive an advance amount from time to time
from the applicant company. After settlement of account, a sum of Rs.
1,56,895/- was outstanding against the respondent. Upon demand by the
applicant company of the outstanding amount from the respondent, the latter, in
discharge of his legally enforceable debt, issued a cheque, bearing no. 424751
dated 04.11.2014, for an amount of Rs. 1,56,895/-, drawn on Canara Bank,
Branch Hisar, in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant deposited the
above said cheque with his bank, Union Bank of India, Branch Red Square
Market, Hisar for encashment of the same. However, vide memo dated
05.11.2014, the above said cheque was returned unpaid with the remark,
"insufficient funds". Subsequently, a legal notice dated 07.11.2013 was served
upon the respondent to call upon him to make the payment. Despite the legal
notice, the respondent failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated
period of 15 days. Hence, the complaint before the Magistrate.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, the contention of the
applicant-company that the respondent used to take advance amount time and
again cannot be accepted on the grounds that as per the Memorandum and
Article of Association of the applicant-company, it has been nowhere
mentioned that the applicant-company is competent to hand out loans or
advance amounts to any person, whether an employee or not. If the version of
the applicant-company is true, even then, the respondent is under no legally
enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans
illegally. It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money
Lender's Act. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037875
2024:PHHC:037875
recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does
not hold a valid licence under the Act. Thus, the debt becomes an
unenforceable debt.
4. Furthermore, the applicant-company has placed on record the
ledger books and accounts to prove that an amount of Rs. 1,56,895/- is
outstanding against the accused. However, the applicant-company has neither
examined the accountant of the company nor any other person who has
prepared the concerned statement of accounts. Therefore, the veracity and
authenticity of these ledger books cannot be conclusively established. This
finding is further substantiated by the fact that the applicant has placed certain
vouchers (Ex. C8 to C19) on record, but the same vouchers find no mention in
the statement of account. This shows that the statement of account has been
prepared as per the applicant's convenience and cannot be relied upon.
5. 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 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 passed CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037875
2024:PHHC:037875
on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched
on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
6. 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.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 14, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037875
4 of 4
