118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAKESH KUMAR OM PARKASH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present judgment dated Narnaul, whereby Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Briefly stated, discharge of his legal liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.924709 dated Bank of Patiala, Branch Office District Courts, Narnaul presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 07.04.2010 with remarks “Insufficient a legal notice dated failed to make the 3. Having heard the learned perusing the record of the case with applicant/complainant in his cross IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAKESH KUMAR V/S OM PARKASH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2013 passed by learned , whereby, respondent has been acquitted in a complaint filed under of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Briefly stated, the applicant had given a loan to the respondent. In his legal liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing dated 10.02.2010 for an amount of Rs.1, Patiala, Branch Office District Courts, Narnaul presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, the applicant served a legal notice dated 08.04.2010 upon the respondent, however, the respondent failed to make the payment. Hence, the complaint. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that applicant/complainant in his cross-examination as CW IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-406-MA-2013 Date of decision: 25.04.2025 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate and for the applicant. has been filed against the impugned passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, uitted in a complaint filed under of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. the applicant had given a loan to the respondent. In his legal liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- payable at State Patiala, Branch Office District Courts, Narnaul. However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated ”. Thereafter, the applicant served upon the respondent, however, the respondent payment. Hence, the complaint. counsel for the parties and after able assistance, it transpires that the examination as CW-1 deposed that he had MANISHA 2025.04.28 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-406-MA given a loan of Rs.1,50,000/ December, 2009 and at that time, he had taken a loan from his bank. In those circumstances, the capacity of the complainant to give loan to the accused is doubtful as no reasonable person not related to him, by taking loan from the bank. deposed that he is an income return but he had not shown the accused as his debtor in As such, only vague allegations are levelled by the complainant/applicant against the accused/respondent and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. applicant/complainant 4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re law that where two views are possible and out the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witness and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. ( Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 an Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 judgment of State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. MA-2013 2 a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused/respondent in the month of December, 2009 and at that time, he had taken a loan from his bank. In those circumstances, the capacity of the complainant to give loan to the accused is doubtful as no reasonable person would give a loan to another person, who is not related to him, by taking loan from the bank. deposed that he is an income-tax assessee and regularly return but he had not shown the accused as his debtor in As such, only vague allegations are levelled by the complainant/applicant against the accused/respondent and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. As a result, the evidence led by the plicant/complainant does not inspire confidence of this Court. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witness and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. to the accused/respondent in the month of December, 2009 and at that time, he had taken a loan from his bank. In those circumstances, the capacity of the complainant to give loan to the accused is would give a loan to another person, who is not related to him, by taking loan from the bank. Further, the complainant tax assessee and regularly filing his income-tax return but he had not shown the accused as his debtor in his income-tax return. As such, only vague allegations are levelled by the complainant/applicant against the accused/respondent and the prosecution has failed to prove its case As a result, the evidence led by the not inspire confidence of this Court. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State d Chandrappa and others vs. State of ). A Division bench of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others passed in CRM-A No.3 of has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. MANISHA 2025.04.28 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-406-MA 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorde warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied. April 25, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) MA-2013 3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any d by the learned trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.28 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment