224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 SATBIR SINGH …Applicant-Appellant V/S BALINDER …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

CRM-14490-2017 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 473 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 473 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is condoned.

CRM-A-969-MA-2017

1. The present application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in criminal complaint bearing No. 983 of 2014 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the accused-respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as Act), on the averments that the respondent was having friendly relations with the complainant on account of visiting terms between them. On 10.02.2014, the respondent approached the complainant to lend an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-for a period of two months. Acceding to his request, the complainant gave an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-to the respondent. After expiry of two months, the complainant- applicant requested the respondent to repay the said amount and in order to discharge his legal liability, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- bearing no.494065 dated 10.04.2014 in his favour drawn at State Bank of India, Nissing, District Karnal with request to present the cheque in question for encashment after 1^st June 2014. Accordingly, on 04.06.2014 the complainant-applicant presented the cheque in question for encashment but the same was returned back with Memo having remarks "Funds Insufficient/Exceeds Arrangement" and the respondent was given legal notice within time. The respondent sent reply dated 26.06.2014 to the legal notice but he did not make the payment and hence, the instant complaint.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that learned Court below has opined that applicant-complainant has deposed that he was a businessman as well as farmer and was also doing the business of spare parts and sale & purchase of old machine and that he knew the respondent from the last two years as he has sold one machine to him. Perusal of cross-examination of the applicant-complainant clearly reveals that initially he denied of any kind of relation with the Swaraj Agency, the showroom of which is situated just besides his shop having a common wall but thereafter he admitted that his mobile number has been clearly mentioned on the letter head of the Agency. Regarding this fact, no such satisfactory reply was given as to why his mobile number was written in the letter head of the Agency specially when he deposed that he has no relation of any kind with the said agency. Perusal of reply to the legal notice given by the respondent clearly indicates that from the first day, the respondent has taken stand that the applicant-complainant was working as Agent/Proprietor/Partner of Swaraj Agency and respondent wanted to purchase tractor and he took the tractor on finance, in which the complainant helped the respondent in obtaining the loan and he had given 23 blank signed cheques to the applicant-complainant as security to get the tractor financed from Cholamandlam Finance Company and due to some manufacturing problem in the said tractor, a consumer case was filed by the respondent, in lieu of which the instant cheque has been used by the applicant-complainant deliberately and harassed the respondent. To corroborate his stand, the respondent in his reply to the l