IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 116 of 2011 Reserved on: 25.6.2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025.

Social Leasing (India) Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rajan Kumar Kanthwal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

Forg the Respondent : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s Shivam i Sharma and Srishti Negi, H Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

(complainant before learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the complainant is running a Social Leasing (India) Ltd. and S ocial Finance Company at Paonta Sahib. The accused borrowed a sum of ₹2,09,000/- on 10.4.1996 from the complainant-company. He agreed to repay the amount in instalments. He defaulted in the payment of the instalments, and an amount of ₹3,73,000/- became due. He issued a cheque of ₹3,73,000/- on 18.10.1999 to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the Bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account closed’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the money, but the accused failed to do so. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action as per law.

3. The learned Trial Court recorded theH preliminary evidence and found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared before the Court, notice of accusation was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined B.D. Kanthwal (CW1), G.D. Sharma (CW2), and S.K. Lohia (CW3) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Chr.P.C., admitted that he had borrowed ₹2,09,000/- but stagted that the amount was borrowed from Social Financing iCompany. He denied the rest of the complainant’s case. He stated that he had deposited ₹70,000/- and ₹27,000/- in two instalments with Social Financing Company. He had also paid margin money of ₹50,000/-. His vehicle was repossessed by the complainant, and he had repaid the whole of the amount. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence, but did not produce any evidence, and made a statement to this effect on

19.1.2010.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant- company admitted that Social Leasing (India) Ltd. and Social Financing Company were two different Companies which were registered separately. This corroborated the version of the accused that he had taken the loan from Social Financing Company and not from the complainant-Company. The complainant-Company failed to produce any document to establish that the loan wuas advanced by Social Leasing India Limited. The loan waos taken on 10.4.1996, and the cheque was issued on 18.10.1C999 after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the cheque was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The acknowledgement was not proved to contain the signatures of the accused. The date of issuance of H the notice was not mentioned in the complaint. All the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were not satisfied. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed b