Dismissed¶9

M/S Om Parkash Arun Kumar v. Gurmukh Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2025CRM-A/1663/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act acquittal upheld; leave to appeal u/S.378(4) CrPC declined (CRM-A-1663-MA-2017, P&H HC, Chandigarh, 12.05.2025, Sandeep Moudgil J). Bahi/account-book entries alone insufficient to sustain S.138 complaint; not legally enforceable instruments; S.34 Evidence Act relevance noted; no legally enforceable debt on date of cheque; cheque issued only as security; interest claimed Rs. 48,000 vs Rs. 16,617 due; presumptions Ss.138/139 NI Act rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities; complainant to prove beyond reasonable doubt once presumption rebutted; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (Crl Appeal No. 2045 of 2008) relied on.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and gone through the case file, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court. ¶6

M/S Om Parkash Arun Kumar Vs Gurmukh Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC should be granted against the trial court's judgment dated 02.06.2017 acquitting the respondent in the Section 138 NI Act complaint. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

Having heard counsel and gone through the case file, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The court affirmed the court below's observation that there is no concrete or cogent evidence on record to establish how, when and in what manner any advance/loan was made to the accused-respondent, nor clarity on the balance payable.

¶7

Key takeaways

Entries in account books (Bahi entries) are not legally enforceable instruments like promissory notes or bills of exchange; while such entries may indicate liability under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, they alone do not constitute valid grounds for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.ratio¶7
The complainant/appellant's claim of Rs. 1,17,000 with 18% annual interest appears arbitrary, the interest of Rs. 48,000 claimed being excessive compared to the actual amount due over the stated period (Rs. 16,617); this discrepancy indicates that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of issuance of the cheque, which the accused/respondent had issued only as security.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sandeep Moudgil, J.), CRM-A-1663-MA-2017, decision dated 12.05.2025: Application under Section 378(4) CrPC for leave to appeal against acquittal (judgment dated 02.06.2017, JMIC Kaithal) in a Section 138 NI Act complaint declined; appeal dismissed. Held: (i) account-book (Bahi) entries are not legally enforceable instruments like promissory notes or bills of exchange; though they may indicate liability under Section 34, Indian Evidence Act, they alone do not constitute valid grounds for a Section 138 complaint; (ii) no concrete or cogent evidence established how, when and in what manner any advance/loan was made or the balance payable; the claim of Rs. 1,17,000 with 18% annual interest was arbitrary, interest of Rs. 48,000 claimed against Rs. 16,617 actually due for the stated period, indicating no legally enforceable debt existed when the cheque was issued, it having been given only as security; (iii) presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 NI Act are rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities and, once rebutted, the complainant must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts (Kumar Exports relied upon). Registry directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

¶1

CRM-A-1663-MA-2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

113 CRM-A-1663-MA-2017 Date of Decision: 12.05.2025

¶5

M/S. OM PARKASH ARUN KUMAR

…..APPELLANT

VERSUS

GURMUKH SINGH

…...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶11

Present: Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

¶12

Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

¶15

The application under Section 378(4) CrPC has been filed by the appellant seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed by JMIC, Kaithal (in short, 'the trial court'), vide which the respondent has been acquitted in a complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short, 'the NI Act').

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 784282 dated 04.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,65,000 from the PNB, Main Branch, Jind Road, Kaithal from his account, to discharge a debt, but it was dishonoured twice, firstly on

¶17

Anuradha 2025.07.20 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶18

CRM-A-1663-MA-2017 2

¶19

06.06.2014 and then on 30.06.2014 with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’ in the respondent's account. Despite receiving a legal notice dated 04.07.2014, the respondent failed to respond or make the payment, prompting the appellant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal has committed a grave error in law and on facts by misappreciating the evidence adduced by the complainantappellant.

¶21

He submits that the Trial court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant on the ground that the Bahi Entries on the basis of which the appellant had filed the complaint was not according to rules and stated that the Bahi entries shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. The Trial court failed to consider the fact that Bahi Entries are per se admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Thus the finding recorded by the Trial Court is illegal and against the provision of law. 5. He further submits that the Trial Court did not consider the facts and circumstance of the case judicially and failed to appreciate the evidence put on record. The Trial Court failed to take into account the statement made by CW3 Krishan Garg, Accountant who stated that he himself had maintained all the accounts and Bahi Entries properly and in accordance with the rules. CW3 Krishan Garg while appearing as witness had made a statement that he himself maintained the statement of accounts i.e. Bahi Khata. He further made a statement that there are signature of Gurmukh Singh on Ex.3 and he also read over the contents of the entries to Gurmukh Singh, respondent.

¶22

Anuradha 2025.07.20 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶23

CRM-A-1663-MA-2017

¶24

¶25

Having heard the counsel for the appellant and going through the case file, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶26

The court below has rightly observed that there is no concrete or cogent evidence on record to establish how, when, and in what manner any advance/loan was made to the accused-respondent, nor is there clarity on the balance payable. The entries in the account books (Bahi entries) are not legally enforceable instruments like promissory notes or bills of exchange. While such entries may indicate liability under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, they alone do not constitute valid grounds for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant/appellant's claim of Rs. 1,17,000 with 18% annual interest appears arbitrary, especially as the interest of Rs. 48,000 claimed is excessive compared to the actual amount due over the stated period (Rs. 16,617). This discrepancy indicates that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of issuance of the cheque. The accused/respondent a simple rural man, had issued the cheque only as security, as no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of issuance. Hence, the Trial Court has committed no error in acquitting the respondent/accused.

¶27

Moreover, presumptions under section 138 and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable presumptions and same are rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities. It is a settled principle of law that once the defence is able to rebut the presumption under the NI Act, it is for the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the same has been supported by the Apex Court in ‘ M/s Kumar Exports vs M/s Sharma Carpets Crl Appeal No. 2045 of 2008 .’

¶28

Anuradha 2025.07.20 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶29

CRM-A-1663-MA-2017

¶30

¶31

In the light of above discussion, this court is of the strong view that no fault can be found with the judgment passed by the trial court and as such the present application under section 378(4) Cr.P.C stands declined as well the appeal, having no merit stands dismissed.

¶32

Ordered accordingly.

¶33

Registry is directed to pay the remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as per law.

¶34

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 30.04.2025 JUDGE Anuradha (a) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No

¶35

Anuradha 2025.07.20 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

M/S Om Parkash Arun Kumar v. Gurmukh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Om Parkash Arun Kumar v. Gurmukh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muskan and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Durga Rani Vs Satish Goyal

Sheetal Vs State of Haryana