ORDER Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - CRM No.37795 of 2013 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the delay occurred as the applicant has availed remedy before Sessions Court by filing appeal, which was not maintainable there as it was the complaint case and Magistrate has acquitted the accused. 2. In view of the above contention, the application is allowed. Delay of 419 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRM No.A-646-MA of 2013 3. Applicant has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against Om Parkash respondent challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It is mainly stated in the application that appeal is good on merits. The judgment of acquittal of accused-respondent has caused grave miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that applicant may be granted leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2012 passed by learned JMIC, Hisar. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record. 6. Learned JMIC, Hisar vide judgment dated 24.03.2012 has acquitted the accused and dismissed the complaint. The brief facts of the case are that complainant HDFC Bank Limited through its GPA Naresh Yadav submitted that the Bank was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and he being its GPA, was duly competent to file complaint. According to GPA Naresh Yadav, accused Om Parkash had approached the Bank to borrow a loan for purchase of vehicle in due course and loan was sanctioned. Accused in order to discharge his outstanding liability, issued a cheque bearing No.848038 dated 24.11.2007 amounting to Rs. 1,11,225/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Hisar in favour of the complainant on his account. On presentation, the said cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid with remarks ‘Funds insufficient’. Legal notice was issued. Then on payment of amount, present complaint was filed. 7. Learned JMIC, Hisar held that power of attorney of Naresh Yadav, GPA (at the time of filing of the complaint) and Sh. Mohinder Sharma, GPA (during the trial) were neither filed in original nor were duly registered as required under the law, as such were not admissible in evidence under the Registration Act. The court discussed so many judgments in its order. Mohinder Sharma, GPA (during the trial) were neither filed in original nor were duly registered as required under the law, as such were not admissible in evidence under the Registration Act. The court discussed so many judgments in its order. The Court also held that all the documents produced before the Court were to be proved in accordance with law. A photocopy of an unregistered power of attorney, is not a secondary evidence of its original and the Court has not believed it. 8. The Court further held that as per Award dated 16.12.2008 relied upon by the complainant-Bank, Sole Arbitrator had directed the HDFC Bank to take the possession of the commercial vehicle in question i.e. Truck Tata LPS 4018 bearing registration No.HR-56M- 3966 from the Receiver with further direction that in the event, HDFC Bank sold away the aforesaid commercial vehicle, it shall first appropriate the sale proceeds towards any reasonable expenses incurred by it for seizing and selling the commercial vehicle and the balance amount should then be appropriated against the outstanding dues. It was further ordered that if there was any short-fall between the sale proceeds and the amount found due by the Tribunal, the Bank shall recover the balance of the outstanding dues from both the respondents by enforcing the Award under Section 36 of the 1996 Act. However, in case of any surplus amount, the same shall be returned to the accused. The Court also held that when after the sanction of alleged loan the Bank seized the vehicle and sold the same and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the amount repayable by the accused, then the accused/borrower was not guilty under an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of such post dated cheques and the Court relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in N.Rangagan v. M/s Centurian Bank Limited 2011 (1) RCR (Crl.) 5. 9. In view of the above, I find that the findings given by learned JMIC, Hisar are correct, as per law and cannot be held as illegal or perverse. 10. Accordingly, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed. Applications dismissed. —————————