Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1586 (PNJ)

Pardeep Kumar Mahajan v. Ashwani Mehta

2014-11-19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. Appellant, namely, Pardeep Kumar Mahajan, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.03.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, vide which, the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed. Concisely, the brief facts of the case in hand are that the respondent, namely, Ashwani Mehta, took a loan of ` 95,000/- from the appellant and to discharge this liability, the respondent had issued a cheque bearing No. 034754 dated 22.11.1997 for ` 95,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Circular Road, Amritsar, in favour of the appellant, with assurance that it would be honoured as and when presented before the bank. The appellant presented the said cheque through clearing house on 02.12.1997, but it was returned with the remarks "Insufficient Funds". Its intimation was received by him on 03.12.1997, along with this cheque. The respondent was served with mandatory legal notice by the appellant on 12.12.1997, asking him to clear the amount within 15 days of receipt of the same. It was duly received by the respondent, but he failed to clear the amount in question. 2. Subsequently, the appellant led preliminary evidence and after considering the same, the respondent was summoned to face trial under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 03.04.1998. On his appearance and after due consideration, the respondent was served with a notice of accusations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide proceedings dated 23.07.1998, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the appellant/complainant examined, Pawan Kumar as PW-1, Chand Kumar as PW-2 and himself as PW-3 and close his evidence. 4. After the conclusion of evidence of the appellant, the statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire incriminating evidence which the appellant/complainant produced against him was put to him to tender explanation for the same. The respondent pleaded innocence and denied having taken loan of ` 95,000/-, but admitted having raised only ` 5,000/- as loan from the appellant and cheque in question had been tempered with by him after altering the amount in figures. In his defence he examined Hardev Singh as DW-1 (without path) and R.S. Bal, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW-2 and he closed his defence evidence. 5. In his defence he examined Hardev Singh as DW-1 (without path) and R.S. Bal, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW-2 and he closed his defence evidence. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.03.2002, passed by learned trial Court, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal, which was admitted on 31.10.2002. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Court has committed grave error by placing much reliance on the testimony of Handwriting Expert, namely, R.S. Bal, who appeared as DW-2. The finding of the learned trial Court that no loan amount of ` 95,000/- was advanced by the complainant to the accused and that there is no manipulation in the digits of the cheque amount is against the facts on record. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in fact, the cheque was for an amount of ` 5,000/- and later on, digit 9' was pre-fixed to the cheque amount in different handwriting and pen. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 10. The stand of the respondent in this case is that he gave a payees account cheque of ` 5,000/- only to the complainant which was duly signed by him and rest of the writing was not filled up by the respondent at the asking of the complainant. The respondent had sufficient funds at that time in his account, but the complainant with mala fide intention altered the figure of ` 5,000/- to ` 95,000/-. In order to prove this contention, he produce DW-2-Mr. R.S. Bal, Handwriting Expert, who opined that digit 9' in the figure 95000/- on Ex. P3 was a latter addition and not in the handwriting of accused-Ashwani Kumar. The original figure was ` 5000/- which had been converted into figure ` 95000/- by adding digit 9' from its left side. The detailed reasons are contained in his report Ex. D-1. There is no testimony of DW-3, Mr. R.S. Bal, Handwriting Expert, remains unrebutted and un-controverted. The opinion of this witness is relevant for proper adjudication of the present case. The detailed reasons are contained in his report Ex. D-1. There is no testimony of DW-3, Mr. R.S. Bal, Handwriting Expert, remains unrebutted and un-controverted. The opinion of this witness is relevant for proper adjudication of the present case. There being no rebuttal, the Court has no other option but to rely upon this statement. However, this Court has carefully perused the original cheque (Ex. P-3) dated 22.11.1997, with the naked eye and this Court finds that digit 9 appears to have been added later on. There is no explanation furnished by the complainant, what to talk of examining a handwriting expert witness. So, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on this respect are well founded. The respondent has fully proved his defence. There is no scope for interference in the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal dated 22.03.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.