The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the issuance of a cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2012 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act notice of which was served upon him.

Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the impugned judgment are as under:-

Complainant is a partnership firm working under the name and style of M/s. Guru Nanak Tractors, Kaithal Road, Assandh, District Karnal and deals in selling tractors and implements and is having agency of Mahindra Tractors. Lakhwinder Singh being one of the partners is competent and authorize the complainant for purchase of a tractor. Accordingly, accused purchased a Mahindra Tractors, Model No. 265-D1 and also purchased a trolley through invoice No. 32 dated 26.06.2006 total amounting to Rs. 3,25,000/-. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 2,28,000/- was received by the complainant through Mahindra Finance on behalf of accused as a part payment of the abovesaid tractor trolley. However, for the rest of the amount, accused asked the complainant that he has no money with him and assured that he will make the balance payment within a week and in case of failure, he will pay interest at the rate of 10.5% per month. Thereafter complainant several times visited the accused for the balance amount of the tractor trolley, but accused postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Later on accused agreed to make payment and upon calculation a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- was found due on account of balance payment of tractor and trolley as well as interest accrued on the balance amount. So, in order to discharge his legal liability accused issued a duly signed cheque bearing No. 011681 dated 30.1.2008 for a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Assandh from his account No. 5006. The complainant presented the said cheque in its bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, Branch Assandh on 30.01.2008. However, the said cheque had been dishonoured vide memo dated 31.01.2008 with the remarks Account Closed. After receipt of the said memo from his banker, complainant through its partner Lakhwinder Singh got served a legal notice through registered AD as well as UPC calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt thereof. Since the accused failed to make payment of the cheque in dispute within the stipulated time framed even after issuance of statutory notice, hence the complaint.

2. On the preliminary evidence, the accused-respondent was summoned to face trial vide order dated 15.03.2009. Thereafter, accused was served with notice of accusation for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, complainant examined Sube Singh as CW-1, Jasmer Singh as CW-2 and CW-3 Sinder Singh.

4. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. All incriminating facts and circumstances were put to the accused wherein he pleaded complete innocence and false implication.

5. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2012, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent of the notice of accusation served upon him. Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.

7. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-

9. In the preliminary evidence one Lakhwinder Singh appeared by showing him as partner of M/s. Guru Nanak Tractors. The complaint was also filed by Lakhwinder Singh as partner of M/s. Guru Nanak Tractors, but when notice of accusation was served upon the accused and when he faced trial then this Lakhwinder Singh who filed th