IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

258 CRM-A-871-MA-2016 DATE OF DECISION: 18.03.2025 DEVENDER SHARMA ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT Versus BANIT DALAL ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate for the respondent.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

CRM-13963-2016 Application seeking exemption from placing on record certified copies of Annexure A1- A5.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Main Case

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement dated 10.02.2016 passed by the JMIC, Bahadurgarh. Whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :

One plot measuring 1500 square yards bearing khasra no.

288/249/2 situated within the abadi of Revenue estate village Kalu- Sarai, New Delhi was sold by the complainant-appellant to the accused-respondent vide sale deed dated 18.10.2010 for the total consideration of Rs 87,00,000/-. Two cheques bearing No. 030699 and 030700 for the consideration of Rs 40,00,000/- and 35,00,000/- respectively dated 18.10.2010 were issued, and the remaining balance amount of Rs 12,00,000/- were paid in two parts of Rs 5,00,000/- cash and a subsequent cheque of Rs 7,00,000/- which was duly honoured. The complainant-appellant had cordial relations with the accused- respondents both the cheques mentioned above were accepted as sufficient cash was unavailable with the accused-respondents, post one month time they were presented to the HDFC bank Delhi-Rohtak road, Bahadurgarh on 13.11.2010 which got dishonoured with remarks “payment stopped by drawer” vide memo dated 15.11.2010. Thereafter a legal notice dated 13.12.2010 was issued, however no reply was received and accussed respondents failed to make the payment of the due amount with the 15 day time frame, thus the present complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the N.I. Act) dated 18.01.2011 was filed.

3. Contentions The complainant-appellant contends that the trial court has illegally acquitted the accused-respondents without appreciating the fact that the accused-respondents admittedly issued both the cheques in question bearing No. 030699 and 030700 for the consideration of Rs 40,00,000/- and 35,00,000/- respectively dated 18.10.2010 as mentioned above. Also, admittedly signed both the cheques meaning thereby that there was existence of legally enforceable debt. It is further argued that as there was no rebuttal of the legal notice dated 13.12.2010, therefore the presumptions under section 138 and section 139 of the N.I. Act rests in favour of the complainant-appellant, whereby the court “shall presume” the legal liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant-appellant further contends that the trial court has wrongly recorded that the accused- respondents led evidence rebutting the presumption under section 118 and section 139 N.I. Act by taking the stance that post execution of the sale deed dated 18.10.2010 (EX. C-3 ) the accused-respondent along with others went to take the possession of the land and found the same to be encroached upon. Thereafter, a deal for the consideration of Rs 75,00,000/- to acquire the possession of the vacant land was struck, whereas no such suggestion was put forth by the accused-respondents, and the accused-respondent further had led before the trial court that the two cheques in question were issued in the lieu of the same transaction as security which got mis-utilised by the complainant- appellant, the same aspersion is illegal and perverse as no such suggestion was made.

He further, argued that the story is highly improbable that land amounting to Rs 87,00,000/- was purchased without checking the status of the same and furth