Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr.Justice H.S. Madaan
CRM-A-1384-MA of 2014 (O&M)
Sandeep Jain
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 25/07/2017}
(i) Issuance of multiple cheques of same amount of same date was not required for making payment and one cheque would have been sufficient had it been for discharge of legal liability;
(ii) Defence version that complainant had used blank cheques signed by the accused given as security comes out be convincing;
(iii) Presumptions u/s 139 Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of complainant stands rebutted by a probable defence raised by accused;
(iv) Acquittal justified--Leave to appeal declined. (Para 8)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Acquittal—Condonation of Delay--Delay of 75 days in filing appeal--Petitioner contended that he was a poor man not accepted as petitioner was a jeweller and Rs. 65 lacs was given as loan--Appeal dismissed--Limitation Act, 1963, S.5.
(C) Limitation Act, 1963, S.3--Dismissal of Petition--Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides bar of limitation, it dilates that every petition filed after a period of limitation shall be dismissed, although an objection in that regard might not have been taken--Thus the application under reference is liable to be dismissed for the sole reason of the same being time barred. (Para 11)
Mr. H.S. Madaan , J.:- This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. read with Section 372 Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against order of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon by applicant – Sandeep Jain.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that applicant-Sandeep Jain had got filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused M/s Gold Palace, 5L/43, NIT Faridabad through its proprietor Rakesh Khatri and Rakesh Khatri proprietor of said concern on the allegations that the complainant along with his wife Mrs. Vanita Jain has been running a jewellery shop under the name and style of M/s Anagh Jewellers Private Limited; that Rakesh Khatri proprietor of M/s Gold Palace, Faridabad was having business dealings with the complainant and his wife having friendly relations with them. On 12.10.2010 Rakesh Khatri come to their shop and purchased some ornaments on debit basis. He further represented that he was facing financial crises and requested for grant of friendly loan. The complainant and his wife accordingly agreed to grant friendly loan to the tune of Rs.63 lacs to Rakesh Khatri, which included cost of jewellery items so purchased by the accused. Such accused had given assurance to complainant and his wife that he would return the entire amount within a period of six months. As per case of the complainant out of aforesaid loan amount, an amount of Rs.24 lacs had been given to the accused by Mr. Mohit Jain, a friend of the complainant. When the accused did not return the loan amount within stipulated period, the complainant approached him asking him to return the amount and to make payment of ornaments so purchased by him. That for discharge of his financial liability the accused had issued cheques, details of which are as follows:-
Sr. No.
Cheque No.
Dated(Rs.)
Amount
Drawn on
In favour of
1.
605503
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
2.
605504
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
3.
605505
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
4.
605506
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
5.
605507
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
6.
605508
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
7.
605510
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
8.
605511
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
9.
605512
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
10.
605531
23.08.2011
24,90,334/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Vanita Jain
11.
605501
11.07.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
M/s Anag Jewellery. Pvt.Ltd
12.
605502
11.07.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
M/s Anag Jewellery. Pvt.Ltd
13.
604098
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
M/s Anag Jewellery. Pvt.Ltd
14.
604099
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
M/s Anag Jewellery. Pvt.Ltd
15.
605526
23.08.2011
23,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Mohit Jain
16.
604100
23.08.2011
1,00,000/-
PNB, DAV Centenary College, NIT, Faridabad
Sandeep Jain
3. The complainant presented cheque bearing No.605511 dated 23.08.2011 for the sum of Rs. 1 lac through his banker IDBI Bank Limited, Gurgaon but the cheque was received back uncashed vide memo dated 25.08.2011 with the rema
SupremeToday
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
