Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Laxman Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 780 of 2014
Decided on : 31-07-2018
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Judgment of acquittal – Dishonored as the account - Claim of compensation - Complainant/petitioner herein alleged that he is owner Enterprises who works in Steel Plant as contractor Enterprises - They had friendly and family relationship. On the request of accused complainant gave him an amount presence of witnesses - On being demanded after one week gave him a cheque in name Enterprises and assured to return rest of amount after sometime - Said cheque was returned on presentation due to insufficiency of funds in bank - Accused again issued a second cheque which was dishonored as account was closed - Thereafter accused did not make payment despite repeated demands - Therefore complainant filed the case – Held, Accused had filed complaint case earlier in point of time to present one which have been duly taken note of by the Learned Trial Court before coming to a considered finding that the complainant had failed to establish ingredients of legally enforceable debt and existence of inducement or dishonest intention at the very beginning of their transaction - Complainant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show the existence of legally enforceable debt - These findings are therefore well considered and do not deserve interference - Court have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through impugned judgment as also relevant material evidence relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and discussed by the Learned Trial Court From discussions made herein-above it appears that ingredients relating to issuance of cheque dishonor of cheque on presentation and sending of legal notice upon accused for non-payment of amount within the time stipulated were established by complainant – However evidence adduced by accused in nature of two defense witnesses, who were Managers of two Banks and Statement of Accounts of the accused/opposite party herein, as also cheques led Learned Trial Court to believe that defense has successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act -It further appears that relationship between the parties had become sour on account of such criminal cases filed between them and by the accused herein prior in point of time to the present complaint case - Accused had filed against the complainant for dispute relating to cheque in question itself. However, complainant did not produce any documentary evidence or any other evidence to substantiate existence of legally enforceable debt against the accused. Since the relationship between the parties were friendly and on business terms and had become sour, Learned Trial Court also found lack of deceptive intention at initial stage of transaction between parties - On consideration of these facts and circumstances Court do not find that the petitioner has made out any good ground to seek Special Leave to Appeal to assail findings rendered in the impugned judgment - Therefore instant petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed - Petition dismissed
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. Petitioner seeks Special Leave to Appeal in terms of section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 431/2008/T.R. No. 342/2014, whereunder the sole accused/O.P. No. 2 herein, has been acquitted of the charges under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. Complainant/petitioner herein alleged that he is the owner of M/s Mamta Enterprises who works in Bokaro Steel Plant as contractor of the Firm M/s Jagmohan Enterprises. They had friendly and family relationship. On the request of the accused, complainant gave him an amount of Rs. 3,42,000/- in the presence of the witnesses. On being demanded after one week, he gave him a cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- in the name of M/s Mamta Enterprises and assured to return rest of the amount after sometime. Said cheque was returned on presentation due to insufficiency of funds in the bank. The accused again issued a second cheque of Rs. 2,17,000/- which was dishonoured as the account was closed. Thereafter, accused did not make payment despite repeated demands. Therefore, complainant filed the case.
4. After solemn affirmation of the complainant and due inquiry, accused was summoned to face trial for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the N.I. Act. On his appearance, charges were explained to him. Complainant adduced two witnesses. CW-1 Dilip Kumar Singh and C.W.-2 complainant himself. In course of examination, CW-1 identified the cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was in the writing and signature of Jagmohan. It was marked as Ext.-1 with objection of the defence; a cheque of Rs. 2,17,000/- which was in the writing and signature of Jagmohan, was marked as Ext.-2; receipt dated 08.07.2008 and cheque return memo dated 08.07.2008 of Bank of India were marked as Ext.-3 & 3/1; cheque return memo of Bank of India dated 04.07.2008 regarding cheque no. 336514 was marked as Ext.-4; legal notice dated 19.07.2008 and postal receipt were marked as Ext.-5 and 5/1; acknowledgement was marked as Ext.-5/2 and complaint petition having six pages and bearing signature of the complainant and his Advocate, were marked as Ext. 6 series. After closure of the complainant’s evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. Pc where he denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent.
5. Defence adduced two witnesses. DW-1 Binod Kumar Sinha and DW-2 Sunil Kumar Singh. DW-1 who was the Assistant Manager of Allahabad Bank, Bokaro Steel City, has produced cheque no. 187286 dated 05.03.2007 of Rs. 1,70,000/- issued by Jagmohan Enterprises in the name of the complainant, which was marked as Ext.-A. He also identified the petition filed by the Advocate of the Bank bearing his signature and banks’ witness, which was marked as Ext.-B series; DW-2 who was the Manager, Credit, Bank of Baroda, Sector-IV Bokaro, has produced statement of bank account of M/s Jagmohan Enterprises for the period 01.12.2007 to 28.02.2008, which was marked as Ext.-C with objection of the complainant. Further two cheques dated 05.12.2007 and 19.02.2008 issued by M/s Jagmohan Enterprises in the name of M/s Mamta Enterprises was marked as Ext.-D & D/1; certified copy of solemn affirmation of the complainant in Complaint Case no. 268/2008 was marked as Ext.-E; certified copy of order dated 01.09.2008 in the said complaint case was marked as Ext.-E/1; certified copy of solemn affirmation in Complaint Case No. 398/2008 was marked as Ext.-F; certified copy of solemn affirmation of the complainant in Complaint Case No. 649/2008 was marked as Ext.-G; certified copy of order dated 21.04.2009 in Complaint Case No. 649/2008 was marked as Ext.-G/1 without objection of the defence.
6. Learned Trial Court considered the evidence on record in the light of ingred
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
