Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd vs Aazad on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040830
2024:PHHC:040348
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1454-MA-2015 (O & M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
M/S PUNJAB KASHMIR FINANCE LTD
...APPLICANT
V/S
AAZAD
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
The present application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.05.2014, passed by learned
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin in criminal complaint bearing no.
9/2 of 2010 dated 30.03.2009 filed under Sections 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-accused took a loan of
Rs. 4,50,000/- from the petitioner for purchase of a vehicle make Mahindra
Maxx Pickup, bearing registration no.HR-27-J-1315 from the applicant-
complainant in the month of July 2013 for running his business. The
respondent had agreed to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. However, he defaulted in making the payment and to discharge his
liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing no.780824 dated 18.12.2009
for Rs.80,000/-. On presentation for encashment, the cheque was dishonoured
vide memo dated 28.12.2008 with the remarks 'funds insufficient.' The
respondent sought four days' time to ensure clearance of the disputed cheque.
However, it was dishonoured again vide memo dated 04.11.2014 with the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040830
CRM-A-1454-MA-2015 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:040348
remarks 'funds insufficient.' Thereafter, a legal notice dated 19.01.2010 was
sent to the respondent. However, the respondent failed to make the requisite
payment and the present complaint was filed, in which, he was acquitted vide
the impugned judgment.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that the
disputed cheque was issued as a security. In his cross-examination, CW1-Ajeet
Singh has stated that the applicant-company took blank cheques as security at
the time of advancement of loans, which corroborates the defence taken by the
respondent-accused. The respondent was to return the loan amount in 46
monthly installments, however, the record does not reflect as to installment for
which month was sought to be paid by the disputed cheque. Moreover, the
respondent-accused has placed on record the receipts indicating the payment of
the installments as well as the award passed by the Arbitrator. Curiously, the
factum of arbitration was not disclosed in the instant case by the petitioner-
complainant. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the respondent has successfully rebutted the presumption under
Section 139 NI Act.
4. 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.,
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040830
CRM-A-1454-MA-2015 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:040348
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 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)
March 19, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
