Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 527 (MP)

Sanghi Coach Builders v. Gurubachan

2014-05-06

M.C.GARG

body2014
ORDER 1. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Indore, whereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondents accused persons from the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Leave to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment was granted and now the appeal has been heard finally. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.2– Managing Director of 1st respondent, expired, therefore, now the appeal is only against the 1st respondent – Gurubachan Beverage Pvt. Ltd. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, towards part payment of the price of two bodies, which were to be prepared by the appellant of chassis of the vehicle SFC 407 for the amount of Rs.1,28,000/-, the respondent No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.322200 for Rs.65,000/- on 11.8.2000. The said cheque was deposited in the bank but, was bounced by the account of accused No.1 – company. A notice for demanding the amount towards dishonored cheque was issued on 28.8.2000, which was duly received by the respondent on 29.8.2000 but the cheque amount was not paid within 15 days, therefore, complaint was filed. 4. During trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons vide order dated 30.9.2004 and it is against the said order, the present appeal was filed. 5. According to the counsel for the appellant, the complaint was dismissed by the trial Court on the basis of finding written in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment delivered on 30.9.2004. 4. During trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons vide order dated 30.9.2004 and it is against the said order, the present appeal was filed. 5. According to the counsel for the appellant, the complaint was dismissed by the trial Court on the basis of finding written in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment delivered on 30.9.2004. The reasons given were as follows :- 17- ijØke; fyf[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu vijk/k xfBr gksus ds fy;s ;g vko';d gS fd vkjksih }kjk fdlh _.k ;k vU; nkf;Ro ds ykspu ds fy;s ifjoknh ds i{k eas tkjh fd;k x;k gS psd [kkrs esa Ik;kZIr jde u gksus ds vk/kkj ij vuknfjr gqvk gks] bl laca/k esa nkf;Ro gksus dh mi/kkj.kk /kkjd ds i{k eas dh tkrh gSA ysfdu bl ekeys eas gal jkt tks'kh ¼iz-lk-1½ dh ;g Lohdkjksfdr tks ckMh ifjoknh us vkjksih QeZ ds vkns'k ls rS;kj dh Fkh og vkt Hkh ifjoknh ds ikl j[kh gS vksj vkjksih }kjk ugha yhA mDr lk{kh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tks psd fn;k x;k gS og ckMh cukus ds ,ot eas fn;k x;k Fkk og vkjksih }kjk fn;k x;k psd vksj ckMh nksuksa gh ifjoknh ds dCts eas gSA mDr lk{kh dh ;g LohdkjksfDr ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd ftl dk;Z ds cnys eas vkjksih }kjk ifjoknh dks psd iznku fd;k x;k Fkk og iw.kZ gh ugh gqvk Fkk ,slh fLFkfr eas vkjksihx.k }kjk nkf;Ro ds v/khu psd tkjh fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA galjkt tks'kh ¼iz-lk-1½ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd le;&lhek esa dk;Z iw.kZ u djus ls vkjksih QeZ dks uqdlku gqvk gSA ifjoknh lk{kh dh mDr LohdkjksfDr vkSj izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd ftl dk;Z ds cnys ;k nkf;Ro ds v/khu ifjoknh ds i{k eas tks psd tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk og iw.kZ ugha gqvk Fkk blfy;s vkjksihx.k dk ifjoknh ds izfr dksbZ nkf;Ro ;k _.k ugha Fkk] D;ksafd ifjoknh us Lo;a gh ckn eas mDr ckMh dks cspus dk izdk'ku djok;k gSA 6. According to the counsel for the appellant, the observation made by the trial Court is not correct if, one looks into the statement made by the witness of the complainant namely – Hansraj Joshi. 7. I have perused the statement of Hansraj Joshi from the record. According to the counsel for the appellant, the observation made by the trial Court is not correct if, one looks into the statement made by the witness of the complainant namely – Hansraj Joshi. 7. I have perused the statement of Hansraj Joshi from the record. The said statement reads as under :- 12- ifjoknh dh vksj ls vkjksihx.k dks dksVs'ku fnukad 3-4-2000 dks fn;k FkkA gekjs }kjk 75 gtkj #i;s ,d ckMh cukus ds fy, dksVs'ku fn;k x;k FkkA ckn eas gq, okrkZyki ds i'pkr~ 64 gtkj #i;s ,d psphl fuekZ.k dh ykxr r; gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkjksihx.k ds vkns'k ij ifjokjh QeZ eas nks V~kVk 407 dh ckMh rS;kj dh Fkh tks vkjksih QeZ }kjk ugha yh xbZ vkSj og vkt Hkh ifjoknh ds ikl j[kh gqbZ gSA vkjksih QeZ dh vksj ls izkjafHkd Hkqxrku 11 gtkj fd;k x;k FkkA 11 gtkj Hkqxrku ds i'pkr~ vkjksih QeZ ls 1]17]000@& #i;s ysuk 'ks"k jgs FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSaus Lo;a tkdj gekjh QeZ }kjk fufeZr ckMh dks ugha ns[kk] ysfdu eq>s ifjoknh daiuh ds oDlZ eSaustj }kjk crk;k Fkk fd ifjoknh }kjk fufeZr ckMh 407 VkVk dh gS tks fclyjh dh ckVy j[kus ds fy;s mi;qDr gSA vkjksih QeZ ls gesa /kujkf'k izkIr djuh Fkh mlds vkaf'kd Hkqxrku eas fy, vkjksih Øekad 1 }kjk geas #i;s 65 gtkj dk pSd iznku fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds ckjs eas ;g ifjokn yk;k x;k gSA ifjoknh vkSj vkjksihx.k ds e/; ;g le;&lhek r; ugha gqbZ Fkh fd fdrus le; esa dk;Z iw.kZ djds nsuk gSA Lor% dgk ifjoknh QeZ }kjk fnukad 15-5-2000 dks fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ dj fn;k FkkA gekjh QeZ }kjk ckMh cukus dk dk;Z dc 'kq: fd;k x;k Fkk ;g ugha crk ldrk gwaa ysfdu 5&10 fnu ckn dke 'kq: dj fn;k x;k FkkA 13- ;g ckr lgh gS fd le; lhek dk;kZi.k djus ds nkSjku vkjksih QeZ dks iw.kZ uqdlku gqvkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd gekjh QeZ esa vkjksihx.k ds fy, fufeZr fd;s x;s psphl dks csp fn;k x;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjh QeZ dh gh ,d enj QeZ lka/kh cznlZ ds uke ls gh bUnkSj eas gSA psphl mDr gekjh QeZ ¼lka/kh cznlZ½ ls [kjhns gks rks bldh tkudkjh ugha gSA 14- ;g lgh gS fd tks psd fn;k x;k gS og ckMh ds ,ot esa fn;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjs }kjk fufeZr ckMh ,oa psd nksuksa gh gekjs dCts eas FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd iz-Mh- 1 dh nSfud HkkLdj fnukad 22 tqykbZ 2002 eas , ls , Hkkx eas fn;k x;k foKkiu gekjh QeZ }kjk fn;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mDr ysVj isM gekjh gh ifjoknh QeZ dk gS tks iz-Mh- 2 gSA ysfdu eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd iz-Mh-1 esa fn;k x;k foKkiu mUgha dUVsuj ckMh ds ckjs eas gS tks vkjksih QeZ ds vkns'k ij gekjh QeZ eas fufeZr gqbZ gS ;k ughaA 8. Perusal of these paragraphs from the statement of Hansraj Joshi clearly goes to show that the body which was to be prepared by the appellant, company was not prepared and even if, it was prepared it was still lying with the appellant and thus, it goes to show that the reasons given by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents was justified. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.