Crl.App to quash orders allowing appeal in a cheque dishonour case. High Court dismissed application, upholding acquittal where bank account details and signatures could not be linked to the accused.
Application for leave to appeal and to lead additional evidence dismissed; acquittal upheld.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Appeal No. 584-MA of 2007 O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 *****
Kuldip Gaba
.. Appellant
Vs.
Ajay Kumar.
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
**Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The present applicant-complainant is seeking leave of the Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 10.7.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa by virtue of which the respondent-accused has been acquitted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.
A perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the cheque in question, which was dishonoured, was found to be of account No. 27515, which, as testified by DW3 Om Parkash Khetarpal, Deputy Manager of the Bank, was not pertaining to the accused but was in the name of his father Lajja Ram, which is not controverted by the complainant. Even no attempt was made by the complainant to prove that the signatures appearing on the impugned cheque were those of accused Ajay. This rightly led the Court below to conclude, while relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Deepa Finance Corporation Vs. A.K. Mohammed 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 206 that the pre-requisites to prove an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are conspicuously missing. Although a prayer for leading additional evidence to examine Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert and one Rajesh Harit, in whose presence the amount was
2
handed over to the complainant, has been made, but the said application has not been pressed by learned counsel for the applicant, besides this Court is of the view that no benefit could be drawn by the complainant by producing the aforesaid witnesses, in the light of the fact that he has altogether failed to prove the crucial fact that it is the accused who maintained the said bank account, of whom the cheque was issued in his favour and was dishonoured. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to fill up any lacuna left during the trial. No fault could be found with the approach of the learned trial court in acquitting the respondent-accused. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 11,2008 Jiten
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted in a cheque dishonour case where prima facie evidence against the accused was absent.
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for failure to prove that he maintained the bank account from which the cheque was drawn.
Whether discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to lead additional evidence to prove facts not earlier proved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepa Finance Corporation Vs. A.K. MohammedRelied on¶15
Deepa Finance Corporation Vs. A.K. Mohammed 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 206
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldip Gaba
Ajay Kumar
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
