Petitioner sought leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court examined merits regarding adverse inference and witness competence but found no merit in the petition, dismissing it despite noting some merit in the first submission.
Leave to appeal dismissed; application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41.
SURINDER ARORA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Fatyal, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
%
O R D E R 01.02.2017
Crl. M.A. No. 1845/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 64/2017
The petitioner has preferred the present leave petition to seek leave to appeal against the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned MM (E), Karkardooma Court in CC 55307/2016, whereby the respondent/ accused has been acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
There are two aspects which arise from the impugned judgment. The first is with regard to the raising of an adverse inference against the complainant since the complainant did not furnish the bills or ledger
account. In this regard, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the accused had admitted the receipt of goods and thus there was no need for the complainant to furnish the bills or ledger account to establish the supply of goods in respect whereof cheque in question had been issued.
The second aspect is with regard to the competence of the witness produced by the complainant. The complainant had led the evidence of a special attorney Sourabh Bhatnagar. Though the special attorney claimed that he was employed with the complainant for 14-15 years as sales executive and that he had known the accused firm for the last 5-6 years, in his cross examination he had also stated “ It is correct to suggest that I have no personal knowledge of the present case ”.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the intent of the witness CW-1 was only to convey that he was not personally involved in the present case.
The Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the aforesaid two aspects.
Even though there may be some merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner on the first aspect taken note of herein above, in my view, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted insofar as the second aspect is concerned.
In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2017 sr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the leave petition to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has merit in light of the trial court's findings regarding adverse inference an
Whether the impugned judgment is faulted regarding the raising of adverse inference against the complainant who did not furnish bills or ledger account.
Whether the competence of the complainant's witness who stated he had no personal knowledge of the case affects the acquittal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURINDER ARORA
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
VIPIN SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
