Dismissed

M/S Arjan Engineering Corporation v. G.S.Saini Prop M/S Leela Electronics

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2016CRM-A/1570/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The single judge held that the findings of the lower court were correct and not perverse, and no ground was made out for granting leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed; petition for condonation of delay is treated offline or denied by virtue of dismissal.

M/S Arjan Engineering Corporation Vs G.S.Saini… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

214

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.A-1570-MA of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: February 15, 2016

¶4

M/s Arjan Engineering Corporation

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

G.S.Saini (Prop) M/s Leela Electronics

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Rohit Sud, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

CRM No.30277 of 2014

¶14

Heard.

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 944 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.

¶16

CRM No.A-1570-MA of 2014

¶17

Applicant-M/s Arjan Engineering Corporation has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent G.S.Saini (Prop) M/s Leela Electronics, challenging the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted.

¶18

It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2016.03.09 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.A-1570-MA of 2014

¶21

-2-

¶22

appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has caused grave miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to file appeal be granted.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.

¶24

As per the record, the complainant M/s Arjan Engineering Corporation filed a complaint against accused G.S.Saini (Prop) M/s Leela Electronics under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant's version, complainant is a partnership concern under the name and style of M/s Arjan Engineering Corporation and Ajit Kumar is its partner. The complainant supplied goods to the accused firm M/s Leela Electronics, Ludhiana and in discharge of his part liability, accused G.S.Saini, being proprietor of M/s Leela Electronics, issued cheque bearing No.501137 dated 20.02.2005 for a sum of `50,000/-, which on presentation for encashment, was returned back dishonoured with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds'. Legal notice was served upon the accused. When the payment was not made, then the complaint was filed.

¶25

After appreciating the evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.2012.

¶26

The perusal of the record shows that plea of the accused is that he had not issued cheque in question in order to discharge any

¶27

VINEET GULATI 2016.03.09 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CRM No.A-1570-MA of 2014

¶29

-3-

¶30

of his legal liability. In fact, the complainant firm has forged and fabricated cheque in question by making the addition and alteration. No amount is payable by him to the complainant firm. The cheque in question was lying blank with the complainant as security and the complainant has misused the same.

¶31

Learned Court below after appreciating the evidence held that the complainant has proved on record original invoices and declaration issued by the complainant firm. None of the witnesses examined by the complainant has proved on the record the original debit voucher alleged to be issued by the State Bank of India. No material document has been placed on record to show that legal notice was sent to the accused within prescribed time under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The documentary evidence on record reveal that memo regarding dishonouring of cheque was issued on 11.07.2005, which is Ex.C2 whereas notice of demand was issued to the accused on 17.08.2005, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation. The Court held that it was imperative on the part of the complainant to prove that the factum of dishonour of cheque was intimated to the complainant by his bankers State Bank of India through debit voucher advices dated 19.07.2005, which have neither been proved or placed on record nor any effort has been made by the complainant to examine the concerned bank official to prove the above-said document dated 19.07.2005.

¶32

Learned Magistrate held that as the notice has not been served within 30 days, therefore, one of the mandatory ingredient is

¶33

VINEET GULATI 2016.03.09 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CRM No.A-1570-MA of 2014

¶35

-4-

¶36

missing. It is also in the impugned judgment that when the case was fixed for orders, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved, which was dismissed by the Court. Even when the accompanying appeal along with the application has been filed, no such application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence has been filed. As the complainant failed to prove that debit voucher invoice showing that he has received the memo on 19.07.2005, therefore, the Court has correctly held that the memo is dated 11.07.2005. It was for the complainant to prove that memo was received later on and further the legal notice issued by the complainant is within time.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, I find that the findings given by learned JMIC, Jalandhar, are correct, as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings given by learned Court below, can be held as perverse. The impugned judgment dated 04.07.2012 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.

¶38

Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.

¶39

February 15, 2016 Vgulati

¶40

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶41

VINEET GULATI 2016.03.09 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Arjan Engineering Corporation v. G.S.Saini Prop M/S Leela Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arjan Engineering Corporation v. G.S.Saini Prop M/S Leela Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Lachhman Singh Alias Lachha Vs State of Punjab

Rajan Grover Vs State of Haryana

Gurbhej Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Krishana Cons. Co. Vs S K Mittal and Co.

Balwan Singh Vs Shishram Yadav