In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal and allowed it.
Delay in filing the appeal (1165 days) was condoned.
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.
Criminal Misc.A-355-MA of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.A-355-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 12.12.2008
Gurnam Singh
. ...Appellant
Versus
Barraj Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Criminal Misc. No.34062 of 2009
For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 1165 days in fling the appeal is condoned.
Criminal Misc. No.355_MA-2008
The appellant/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents/accused on the allegations that a cheque issued by the latter in lieu of the pre-existing liability bounced on account of insufficiency of funds and latter did not pay up even after the service of statutory notice in the relevant behalf had been effected upon them.
Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a finding of exoneration by noticing that the complainant had himself admitted in the crossexamination that the amount under reference had been given by him to respondent/accused no.1 on account of their inter-se friendship and that
Criminal Misc.A-355-MA of 2008
-2-
********
he had not seen any documentation to satisfy himself that respondents No.2 and 3/accused are also partners of respondent no.4 alongwith respondent no.1/accused.
The learned Trial Magistrate also noticed that the complainant had not uttered even a word to prove that respondents no.2 and 3/accused were incharge of respondent no.4 concern or that they were also responsible for the conduct of day to day affairs of that respondent concern. It was also noticed that respondent no.1 had issued a cheque in his personal capacity, though it came to be issued from out of the accounts of the company. The Court further noticed that there was no averment by the appellant/complainant that offence aforementioned had been committed with the consent or connivance of respondents no.2 and 3.
Respondent no.1 was indicted; while the other respondents came be to acquitted.
I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. There is no force in the plea of grant of leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Dismissed.
December 12, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should condone the excessive delay in filing the appeal against acquittal and allow the appeal.
Whether the Civil Court finally took or continue the proceedings.
Gurnam Singh
Barraj Kumar
S. D. ANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
