CRLA/136/2024
2024 Latest Caselaw 1984 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/136/2024 on 3 September, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                                                                      2024:UHC:6348
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPLA No.66 of 2024
                               With
                               CRLA No.136 of 2024
                               Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

None is present for the appellant.

2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that this criminal appeal along with special leave to appeal application has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of respondent no.2 from the charge of offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act on following the grounds, as stated in the appeal:-

(i) That the learned Magistrate without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without examining the evidence on record in a very cursory and mechanical manner acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

(ii) That the learned court below erred in not granting the benefit of presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act to the appellant/complainant.

(iii) That the respondent no.2 has admitted his signatures on the cheque, however, he has taken a false defence that the appellant/complainant had stolen the said cheque, however, there is no complaint in the FIR regarding the alleged theft of cheque not there is any information to the bank regarding lost or theft of the cheque.

4. In view of the submissions made by State counsel, this Court perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

5. In the impugned judgment, Trial Court 2024:UHC:6348 observed that it is clear from the cross-examination of the appellant/complainant that he had the knowledge that the company of the private respondent was a partnership firm and it has two partners and the same fact was admitted by the appellant/complainant. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in re "Ramesh Nagarkoti vs. Kedra Datt Purhohit AIR Online 2021 UTR 123" wherein it was held that when the partner of the firm is prosecuted for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act then without the firm being arraigned as an accused such partner shall not be liable to the prosecution u/s 138 of the Act.

The Trial Court further observed that a Power of Attorney not duly stamped by the seal of the Firm and not in the letter head of the Firm shall be no Power of Attorney in the eyes of law.

6. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the same. No interference is called for.

7. Accordingly, leave is refused. Application, made therefor, is hereby dismissed. Criminal appeal also stands dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 03.09.2024 Rajni

RAJINI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17

GUSAIN d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4 DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53061 6A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2024.09.06 13:44:41 +05'30'