Balak Ram vs Harvinder Singh

Surinder Singh, J.

Cr.M.P. (M) No. 18 of 2013.

The present leave to appeal is barred by 111 days as such the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. Though the application is resisted and contested by the respondent on the ground that facts propounded are false but there is nothing to substantiate it. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the present leave to appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Cr.M.P. (M) No. 19 of 2013.

Respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the entire cheque amount stands paid to the petitioner vide receipt Ext. DW1/A thus, the defence stood probabilized. The record of the learned trial Court was sent for and on receipt I have perused and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is a money lender. He had applied for the license but not yet registered. He had acquaintance with the respondent and during the month of May, 2010, respondent borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- and agreed to pay the same within three months. In discharge of this debt liability, accused issued cheque No. 317290 dated 22.9.2010 for the said amount drawn on Punjab National Bank, Shimla in favour of the petitioner. On being presented, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Accordingly he sent statutory demand notice as per provisions of Section 138 of the Act by registered post.

In reply to notice aforesaid, the respondent submitted that he had already made the payment to him regarding which the petitioner had executed a receipt but even despite that he filed the complaint and it was consistent stand taken by the respondent that money stood already paid to the complainant vide receipt Ext. DW1/A which has been proved by DW1 Gurvinder Singh, a marginal witness. He admitted his signatures on the receipt and also stated that the petitioner had signed the said receipt in token of the receipt of the amount against cheque No. 317290 dated 22.9.2010 which fact has not been disputed in cross examination of the said witness.

The perusal of the receipt shows that respondent had finally discharged his liability qua the cheque in question. The petitioner being a money lender had neither maintained any account books regarding his business transactions nor such books of accounts were ever produced by him during the evidence before the learned trial Court. Since the defence stood probabilized as such leave to appeal is rejected.

Cr. A No. 4 of 2013.

Since the leave to appeal has been refused therefore, the appeal is dismissed.