Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:-

1. Present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking leave to appeal, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.3.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, whereby complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('N.I. Act' for short), filed by the present applicant-complainant, was dismissed and the accused-respondent was acquitted.

2. Shorn of the detailed factual background, it would suffice to note that respondent-Amarjeet Singh entered into a loan agreement dated 18.11.2003, with the applicant for an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/-, for purchase of vehicle Tata LPT2515. The borrower-respondent had been paying the loan amount by way of instalments, as mutually agreed between the parties. However, borrower-respondent allegedly defaulted in making the payment and consequently, he issued cheque dated 18.7.2005 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, for an amount of Rs. 1,91,230/- with a view to discharge his existing liability. The cheque was presented by the complainant, which was received vide memo dated 19.7.2005 with remarks "Account Closed". The applicant issued the legal notice dated 1.8.2005 through postal receipt, demanding the cheque amount but the accused did not pay the same. Thereafter, complaint was filed.

3. After recording preliminary evidence, learned trial court summoned the accused vide order dated 1.10.2005. Accused put appearance. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined its witnesses and tendered affidavit as CW1/A, besides cheque dated 18.7.2005 for Rs. 1,91,230/- as Ex. C-1, return memo dated 19.7.2005 as Ex. C2, Ex. C3 legal notice dated 1.8.2005, Ex. C4 postal receipts dated 1.8.2005, Ex. C5 loan agreement, Ex. C6 statement of account and Ex. C7 power of attorney.

4. After closure of evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He categorically denied the allegations and opted to lead defence evidence. Accused further stated that at the time of taking the loan, his entire cheque book was got signed by the complainant. He stated that he had never executed any cheque, while he was informed that the signed blank cheques were taken only as a formality. He next stated that the complainant bank got registered a criminal case against him, which was cancelled. In his defence evidence, the accused examined DW-1 VKB Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, Jhajjar, who placed on record his affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. He also placed on record his report Ex. DW-1/B and photographs as Ex. DW-1/C to Ex. DW1/H. Thereafter, accused closed his evidence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, learned trial court came to the conclusion that complainant has failed to discharge his initial onus. Complainant evidence was duly rebutted by the accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and accused was acquitted, vide impugned order dated 24.3.2012. Hence this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has duly proved its case, by leading cogent and well convincing evidence, which was sufficient to record conviction. However, learned trial court misdirected itself, while not appreciating true facts as well as evidence available on record, in the correct perspective. He further submits that once the accused has defaulted in making the payment of loan amount, he issued the cheque in question, with a view to discharge his existing liability. Since the statutory presumption was against the accused and in favour of the applicant, learned trial court ought to have drawn statutory presumption against the accused. He prays for allowing the present application.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a concoct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document