Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- These eight identical applications under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), seeking leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal, bearing CRM-A-1307-MA-2014, CRM-A-1308-MA-2014, CRM-A-1309-MA-2014, CRM-A-1310-MA-2014, CRM-A-1311-MA-2014, CRM-A-1312-MA-2014, CRM-A-1313-MA-2014 and CRM-A-1314-MA-2014, between the same parties, are being disposed of together, vide this common order, as all these applications are arising out of similar set of facts. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRM-A-1307-MA-2014.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial Court in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment of acquittal, are that applicantcomplainant was a Co-operative Society and the present complaint has been filed on behalf of complaint by Birinder Singh, who being District Manager and principal officer was duly competent and authorized to file the complaint. Accused-respondent No.1-firm is engaged in the business of milling of paddy/rice and respondents No.2 & 3-accused were partners of respondent No.1.

3. The respondents-accused were issued paddy/rice by the applicant through its District Manager for milling of paddy/rice for the years 1999- 2000. Respondent No.1-accused did not mil the paddy/rice as per agreed terms. The rice was stored in the premises of respondent No.1-accused who failed to supply the rice due against respondents-accused.

4. On 25.02.2001, respondent No.2-accused issued cheque No.702252 for Rs.12,00,000/- drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Nabha Branch on account of security against the shortage of rice from paddy from crop for the years 1999-2000, stored for custom milling of paddy supplied by the applicant and stored in the premises of respondent No.1-accused. Applicant deposited abovesaid cheque on 28.02.2001 with its banker State Bank of Patiala, Branch Nabha for encashment. The said cheque was given for clearance on 28.02.2001 from respondent No.1 but same was returned back to the applicant un-cashed with memo bearing endorsement “Funds Insufficient” in account of respondent No.1. Applicant approached respondents No.2 & 3 through their employes to make payment of Rs.10 lacs but they flatly refused to make the payment of cheque. On 13.03.2001, applicant got issued a legal notice to the respondents but same was received back with the report of refusal and intimation to this effect was received on 13.03.2001. Respondents were repeatedly requested for payment of cheque amount but they paid nothing to the applicant.

5. On the basis of abovesaid allegations levelled in the complaint, accused were summoned. They appeared before the learned Court. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I. Act’ for short). Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint, the applicant-complainant produced documentary as well as oral evidence. On closing of the evidence of complainant, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. They denied the allegations, alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. Accused also led their oral as well as documentary evidence, in their defence.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial came to the conclusion that the complainant-applicant has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquited of the charges framed against them, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.03.2014. Since the complainant-applicant filed as many as eight identical complaints and all the eight complaints were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment of acquittal of same date i.e. 26.03.2014