JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - Instant criminal appeal emanates from the judgment dated 15.9.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which complaint No. 50 dated 19.10.2012, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), was dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Briefly put, the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant were that 47322 quintals and 80 kgs of paddy was supplied for custom milling to the respondents, in terms of an agreement dated 18.11.2009, entered into between the parties. It was averred that on having lifting the same from the Sheller, it was found short of 6738 qnts. 2 kgs, alongwith some tarpaulins and wooden crates. The total loss came down to be calculated amounting to Rs.78,00,800/-. It was further averred in the complaint that in discharge of the same existing part liability the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 068821 dated 2.6.2010, for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, drawn on the State Bank of India Jagadhari, which on presentation on 27.9.2010, came to be dishonoured vide memo of the even date with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. The cheque was again presented on 6.10.2010, which was returned as dishonored vide memo of even date with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 20.10.2010, was sent on 21.10.2010 to the respondents, to make the requisite payment within 15 days. However, due to non-payment of the amount, the complaint was filed by the appellant on 3.11.2010, wherein the respondents were summoned by the trial Court vide order of even date, to face the trial.

3. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant got examined Rajvir Singh DM, Hafed, Yamunanagar as CW1, Dharampal as CW2, and stated regarding serving the legal notice and Suresh Kumar, Clerk, SBI as CW3, and proved in his evidence the certified copy of cheque return register as Ex.CW3/A, statement of account as Ex.CW3/B and his authority letter as Ex.CW3/C.

4. Upon closure of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she had stated that one undated blank cheque had already been taken by the complainant from her as security alongwith FDR of Rs.3 lakh, at the time when agreement was entered into and the said cheque had been misused by the complainant, as there was no outstanding amount towards the complainant. In defence, the accused examined, Hari Om Clerk, office of Deputy Commissioner, Yamunanagar appeared as DW1, who proved Ex.D1 to Ex.D9, Rishi Raj Sharma, Sanction Officer of Hafed, as DW2, who proved in his evidence, the statement of account pertaining to dealings between the parties Ex.D10 to D22, Ashok Gupta, Assistant from the office of Hafed, Yamunanagar, as DW3, who proved in his evidence documents Ex.D23 and Ex.D24, regarding filing of counter claim by the accused respondents for which arbitration proceedings were pending, Jora Singh, Advocate as DW4, who proved in his evidence notice dated 17.8.2010 sent by him on behalf of the complainant to the accused-respondents appeared as Ex.D4, DS Panejta, Advocate as DW5, Shamsher Singh Kamboj, as DW6 (inadvertently written as DW3), who proved that he had attested the documents Ex.D25 and Ex.D26, and Devender Prasad, Forensic Documents Expert, as DW7, who tendered his report in evidence as Ex.DW7/A and photographic charts as Ex.DW7/B to Ex.DW7/G that the date on memo had been altered and cheque in question has been forged by filling up the date afterwards. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed by Court order.

5. On evaluating the evidence on record produced by the parties and having heard the learned counsel, the trial Court vide the impugned judgment dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge.

6. Discontented, the complainant-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had committed grave error in