Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 694 (PNJ)

Modan Singh v. Joginder Singh

2016-02-18

KULDIP SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. Kuldip Singh, J.: (Oral) - CRM No. 26669 of 2015 There is delay of 151 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, supported by an affidavit of the applicant, delay of 151 days in filing the present application for leave to appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. Main case 2. This order will dispose of the application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant, for leave to appeal. Heard. 3. The applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which has been dismissed on merits by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 12.1.2015. 4. The perusal of the complaint shows that according to the complainant, accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7 lacs, for which he issued the cheque, which was dishonoured. Accused had taken the plea that an agreement of sale was executed in favour of the complainant and Rs. 7 lacs was given to him by the complainant, for which he obtained the cheque as security. The agreement of sale was not denied by the complainant. Further, it comes out that the complainant is a Commission Agent and accused is his customer and that he was maintaining all entries of debit and credit in his ledger account books. Before the lower Court, the ledger entries Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were produced, which show that even entry of Rs. 200/- was made, but no entry for advancing a loan of Rs. 7 lacs to the accused was made. It was pleaded that money was borrowed from one Kuldeep Singh, who is now dead. Before the lower Court even the family members of said Kuldeep Singh were not examined to prove that the said loan was advanced by said Kuldeep Singh and any receipt was issued against the same. As such, the lower Court held that the complainant has failed to explain qua advancement of loan to the accused and that the legally enforceable debt is not proved. Therefore, there is no ground to disagree with the findings recorded by the lower Court. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the application for leave to appeal, filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.