Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
Sandeep Mehta, J.
VINOD KUMAR — Appellant
Vs.
NARAYAN DAS — Respondent
Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 211 of 2018
Decided on : 09-12-2019
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal
Act Referred
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138
Headnote
Section 138 of the NI Act - Appeal against Acquittal - The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, dismissing the leave to appeal application.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-complainant sought to appeal against the judgment acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the acquittal was perverse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's case regarding the disputed cheque being handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 was falsified, and there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned judgment of acquittal was perverse and warranted interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's case and the admission of a monetary dispute between the complainant and the accused in the year 2005, which fortified the defence plea of misuse of the cheque.
Final Decision: The leave to appeal application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed, with the record being returned to the trial court.
Key Points: - The leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was dismissed for lack of merit. (!) - The appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. (!) - The evidence showing the disputed cheque was handed over in 2007 was found to be falsified in light of prior 2005 complaint about cheque misuse and a monetary dispute in 2005. (!) (!) - The defence theory of misuse of the cheque was supported by the complainant’s admission of a monetary dispute in 2005. (!) - The record was returned to the trial court after dismissing the leave to appeal application. (!) - The appellant-complainant sought to appeal the acquittal of the respondent-accused in the NI Act case, but the court upheld the acquittal. (!) (!) - The Special Judicial Magistrate’s conviction and subsequent appellate acquittal were reviewed by the High Court. (!) (!) - The complainant’s case about the cheque being handed over in 2007 was deemed inconsistent with the 2005 complaint and the evidence. (!) - The court affirmed that there was no evidence of illegality or perversity in the acquittal judgment. (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. Pritam solanki, For the Appellants; Mr. Pankaj Gupta, For the Respondents
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Perused the material available on record.
3. The instant leave to appeal application has been preferred by the appellant-complainant Vinod Kumar under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.135/2017 (CIS No.257/2016) whereby the learned Appellate Court, accepted the appeal against the conviction filed by the respondent-accused Narain Das against the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.l, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case 271/2009, and acquitted him of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment dated 07.03.20218 as well as the judgment of conviction dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the original record.
5. The contention of Shri Pritam Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant was that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused urged that the complainant came out with a pertinent case in the complaint that the cheque in question was handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 and that the accused was liable to honour the same as it was given to cover a legally enforceable debt. Shri Gupta pointed out that the accused took a specific defence of misuse of his cheque before the trial court. In support of this defence theory, the complaint (Ex.D.2) filed by the accused to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 21.07.2005 was proved wherein, the number of disputed cheques i.e. 277852 and another cheque No.277841 are mentioned and it is alleged that the complainant had taken these cheques by way of security and did not return the same to him and that they could be misused.
7. On a perusal of the complaint (Ex.D.2), in context of the allegations levelled in the complaint, it is clear that the case set up by the complainant in his complaint that the disputed cheque was handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 is totally falsified. The complainant did not specify in his complaint or his evidence as to when he gave the loan of Rs.40,000/- to the accused. He specifically alleged that the accused gave him the cheque of Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs.40,000/- after marking date 25.05.2007 thereupon. Since the accused had already filed a complaint regarding the misuse of the very same cheque in the year 2005, the possibility of him having handed over this cheque to the complainant in the year 2007 was virtually non-existent. The complainant further admitted in his cross examination that he and the accused had engaged in a monetary dispute in the year 2005 as well. This admission of the complainant fortifies the defence plea that the cheque handed over to the complainant in the year 2005 had been misused.
8. In this background, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2018 warranting interference therein and hence there is no reason to grant leave to appeal against the same.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the leave to appeal application is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed as such.
10. Record be returned to the trial court.
