O R D E R

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-A-1867 of 2019, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said application and confirmed the judgment and order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, whereby the respondent No.1 – accused had been acquitted from the charges leveled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the Courts below had materially erred in not appreciating the facts and evidence on record and had wrongly drawn the conclusion that the appellant- complainant had failed to prove his case against the respondents qua the execution of the cheque in question. According to him, the father of the appellant was authorised to give notice of demand as required under Section 138 of the said Act and such authority was required to be inferred in view of Section 186 of the Contract Act. He has stated that there was enough evidence adduced by the appellant to prove that the cheque in issue was issued by the respondents in discharge of their legal debt of the appellant.

4. However, the learned counsel, Ms. Amita Gupta, appearing for the respondents, taking the Court to the judgment passed by the Trial Court submitted that the Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the said Act were not proved by the appellant-complainant and, therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the said Act also would not arise. According to her, the appellant–complainant was studying abroad at the relevant time and therefore amount could not have been treated as a debt.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint of the appellant-complainant by holding inter alia that the appellant had failed to prove his case qua the due execution of the cheque in question and also had failed to prove that there was any legal debt or liability of the respondent No.1-accused against which he had issued the cheque in question. It cannot be gainsaid that the question of presumption would arise only when the basic fact is proved by the complainant.

6. The Trial Court in a detailed judgment, after considering the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had come to the conclusion that the notice of demand given on behalf of the appellant was not by the authorised person and, therefore, the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the said act were not proved. The Trial Court has also observed that the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the said Act that the cheque should have been drawn by the accused for discharge of any debt or liability, was also not proved by the appellant – complainant. The High Court also, considering the said findings, dismissed the appeal of the appellant by the impugned order.

7. There being no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the two Courts below, we are not inclined to accept the present appeal.

8. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

......................J.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

10TH JANUARY, 2024.

ITEM NO.114 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s).3269/2023 SAURABH GOYAL Appellant(s)

VERSUS ARUN GOYAL & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 10-01-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv.

Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.

Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. In terms of the signed order, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)