Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2947 (RAJ)

VINOD KUMAR v. NARAYAN DAS

2019-12-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Perused the material available on record. 3. The instant leave to appeal application has been preferred by the appellant-complainant Vinod Kumar under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.135/2017 (CIS No.257/2016) whereby the learned Appellate Court, accepted the appeal against the conviction filed by the respondent-accused Narain Das against the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.l, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case 271/2009, and acquitted him of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment dated 07.03.20218 as well as the judgment of conviction dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the original record. 5. The contention of Shri Pritam Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant was that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused urged that the complainant came out with a pertinent case in the complaint that the cheque in question was handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 and that the accused was liable to honour the same as it was given to cover a legally enforceable debt. Shri Gupta pointed out that the accused took a specific defence of misuse of his cheque before the trial court. In support of this defence theory, the complaint (Ex.D.2) filed by the accused to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 21.07.2005 was proved wherein, the number of disputed cheques i.e. 277852 and another cheque No.277841 are mentioned and it is alleged that the complainant had taken these cheques by way of security and did not return the same to him and that they could be misused. 7. On a perusal of the complaint (Ex.D.2), in context of the allegations levelled in the complaint, it is clear that the case set up by the complainant in his complaint that the disputed cheque was handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 is totally falsified. 7. On a perusal of the complaint (Ex.D.2), in context of the allegations levelled in the complaint, it is clear that the case set up by the complainant in his complaint that the disputed cheque was handed over to him by the accused in the year 2007 is totally falsified. The complainant did not specify in his complaint or his evidence as to when he gave the loan of Rs.40,000/- to the accused. He specifically alleged that the accused gave him the cheque of Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs.40,000/- after marking date 25.05.2007 thereupon. Since the accused had already filed a complaint regarding the misuse of the very same cheque in the year 2005, the possibility of him having handed over this cheque to the complainant in the year 2007 was virtually non-existent. The complainant further admitted in his cross examination that he and the accused had engaged in a monetary dispute in the year 2005 as well. This admission of the complainant fortifies the defence plea that the cheque handed over to the complainant in the year 2005 had been misused. 8. In this background, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2018 warranting interference therein and hence there is no reason to grant leave to appeal against the same. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the leave to appeal application is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. 10. Record be returned to the trial court.