Balak Ram vs Manjeet Singh

Surinder Singh, J.

Cr. M.P. (M) No. 21 of 2013.

The record of the learned trial Court was sent for. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

The petitioner is a money lender. He had applied for the license but is not so far registered. The respondent borrowed money to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the petitioner and agreed to pay the same. 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 for encashment in UCO Bank, the Mall Shimla 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, 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.

During the trial, respondent stepped into the witness-box and examined himself as DW1. He categorically stated that the amount in question stood paid to the petitioner vide receipt Ext. DW1/A in the presence of the witnesses. He denied that the receipt aforesaid did not bear signatures of the petitioner rather in turn offered that the petitioner could get it compared, if so desired, but no steps were taken by the petitioner. However, DW2 Gurbeer Singh marginal witness to the receipt was examined. According to him, on 15.10.2010 respondent called him to his shop. His brother Jasvinder Singh was also there. The amount wrapped in envelop and handed over to the petitioner and receipt Ext. DW1/A was executed which was signed by the petitioner as well as by him as a marginal witness. The perusal of the receipt Ext. DW1/A clearly reflects cheque number and the amount to which the respondent had given as full and final settlement to the petitioner. In cross examination he denied that said receipt was a false document. The petitioner being a money lender did neither maintain account books regarding his business transaction nor these books were produced in evidence to show that respondent owed anything to him. Thus, the learned trial Court drew the adverse inference in turn the defence taken by the respondent stood probabilized. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal, thus, the leave to appeal is refused.

Cr. A No. 5 of 2013.

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