JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. -

CRM-30122-2017

The present application has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 63 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 63 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

CRM-A-2272-MA-2017

1. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.05.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurdaspur, whereby the accusedrespondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the complainant/appellant are that the accused/respondent and the complainant/appellant knew each other and in the month of November, 2012, the accused took a friendly loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant and agreed to repay the loan within five months. It was alleged that the accused No.2 is the Director of accused No.1 and was responsible and In-charge of business/the day to day affairs of the accused No.1 at the time of issuance of the cheque. On 30.05.2013, the complainant approached the accused No.2 and demanded the money back. On this, the accused No.2 issued cheque bearing No.461678 dated 30.05.2013 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Fifty Thousand only) of UCO Bank, Branch G.T. Road, Jalandhar City to the complainant to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the above said cheque in his Banker i.e. Union Bank of India, Branch Dhariwal for encashment The said cheque was sent by the Banker of the complainant to the Banker of the accused and the same was dishonoured and returned back vide memo dated 17.08.2013 with remarks 'Funds Insufficient'.

3. After considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and both the accused were summoned on 10.04.2014. The accused pleading not guilty to the notice of accusation under Section 138 of Act and claimed trial.

4. In after notice evidence, the preliminary evidence of the complainant was considered as envisaged in the case of Indian Bank Association and others Versus Union of India and others 2014(2) RCR (Cri.) 598 which is the evidence of Gurbakhsh Singh as CW-1, who tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A), the original cheque bearing No.461678 dated 30.05.2013 (Ex.C-1), original memo dated 17.08.2013 (Ex.C-2), copy of legal notice dated 09.09.2013 (Ex.C-3) and postal receipt (Ex.C-4) and closed the same. Thereafter, in additional evidence, the complainant tendered into evidence the copy of sale deed dated 12.12.2012 (Mark-1), copy of sale deed dated 12.12.2012 (Mark-2), copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2013 (Mark-3), copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2013 (Mark-4), copy of sale deed dated 01.03.2013 (Mark-5), copy of sale deed dated 01.03.2013 (Mark-6), agreement to sell dated 05.11.2012 (Mark-7) and copy of agreement to sell dated 05.11.2012 (Mark-8) and closed the after notice evidence.

5. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the incriminating material was put to the accused and his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, in which the accused denied the allegations and took the defence that he was innocent. A false complaint had been filed against him. The documents sale d