##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH arising out of CRM-A-2230-MA-2018 Date of decision : 14.05.2025 The Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Abohar ...Appellant Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ajit Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D. S. Nigha, Advocate for the respondent.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 10.11.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar in Complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-167/2016, titled as The Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Abohar vs. Darshan Singh, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted and the aforesaid complaint was dismissed.

2. For the sake of coherence and convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their nomenclature give before the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that the aforementioned complaint had been filed by the complainant-Bank, who is a juristic person, under Section 138 of the Act on the allegations that the brother of the accused, namely Sukhpal Singh, had taken a loan from the complainant. He had executed documents, thereby agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest as stipulated in the documents. To discharge the legally enforceable debt and liability of his brother, the accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque had been dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’ on 30.11.2015. The accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount after receipt of the legal notice, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforesaid complaint.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the preliminary evidence, issued process against the accused, vide order dated 11.02.2016. The accused appeared before the Court and was served with notice of accusation. The complainant produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint. After closure of the same, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. No defence evidence had been led by him.

5. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused by observing that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in its favour to discharge a legally enforceable debt and the cheque so issued to discharge liability of third person, i.e. brother of the accused, did not fasten any liability under Section 138 of the Act, upon him.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant had filed an application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal. Vide order dated 30.04.2025, passed by this Court, the said application was allowed and leave was granted to the complainant to file appeal. Accordingly, the said application has been converted into present appeal, which lays challenge to the aforesaid judgment of acquittal.

7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the findings given by the learned trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind and did not appreciate the evidence produced on record in a proper manner. The fact that the very issuance of the cheque in question by the accused raised a presumption that the same had been issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt, had been ignored. The well settled principles of law had also not been taken into consideration. The accused had not denied that the cheque in question was issued by