Single judge dismissed a Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. application seeking special leave to appeal from the acquittal of an accused for cheque dishonour. The court held that since the cheque was issued as security, the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act was not made out.
The application filed under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
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 -
CRM-A-800-MA-2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-800-MA-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2014
Tarsem Lal
.....Applicant/appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.Pawan Jhanda, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral)
The present application has been filed under Section
378(4), Cr.P.C., for grant of special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 26.05.2012, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby respondent No.2Mahalaxmi Trading Company was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, `the N.I. Act').
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
MEENU 2014.12.17 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
CRM-A-800-MA-2013 (O&M)
- 2 -
respondent No.2-accused had raised various pleas before the learned trial Court. The applicant-complainant had fully proved his case to the effect that respondent No.2-accused took a loan of `1,00,977/- from him and in discharge of his legal liability issued a cheque, which was bounced and hence, the learned trial Court should have convicted and sentenced respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that cheque in question was issued as a security cheque. During his cross-examination, the applicant-complainant conceded that the cheque was issued as a security cheque. He has referred to the findings of the learned trial Court at page 40, wherein it was mentioned as under:-
“The complainant in his cross examination has clearly said that cheque Ex.C1 was given as a security. The citation on this point narrated by the counsel for the accused '2006(3) CCC page 665 (S.C.)” supports the argument of the counsel for the accused. Therefore, in light of above discussion and observations, I found that complainant has failed to prove his complaint. Thus, this complaint does not fall under the purview of Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, I dismiss the complaint. The accused is acquitted. He is set at
MEENU 2014.12.17 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
- 3 -
CRM-A-800-MA-2013 (O&M)
liberty. His bail/surety bond stand discharged. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
Learned trial Court has specifically held that the cheque, Ex.C1, was issued as a security cheque. The applicantcomplainant has fairly conceded during cross-examination of the above fact.
In view of the above and the case law relied in its judgment by the learned trial Court, no ground for interference by this Court is called for. Hence, the application filed under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C., is dismissed.
December 16, 2014 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE
MEENU 2014.12.17 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of an accused for issuing a security cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Whether the fact that the cheque was issued as a security cheque warrants interference with the trial court's acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2006(3) CCC page 665 (S.C.)Referred¶23
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tarsem Lal
State of Haryana
Mahalaxmi Trading Company
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
