POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-22677-2025 in/and -2- CRM-A-1043-2019 On oral request of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, main case is taken on Board. CRM-A-1043-2019 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C, against the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalalabad, whereby the respondent- accused stands acquitted of the charges framed against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ' the Act'). 2. Factual Matrix of the case leading to the filing of the present petition unfolds as follows:- The complainant bank has its Head Office in Chandigarh and various branches across different locations, including one at Jalalabad West, District Fazilka. Mr. Varun Suneja, the Field Officer and authorized representative of the Jalalabad(W) branch, is well acquainted with the facts of the case and has been authorized to file this complaint through Resolution No. 4 dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Administrator Committee of the Bank. The ₹ accused had availed a poultry farm loan of 5,00,000/- by mortgaging his mother’s property, as per Registered Mortgage Deed No. 4861 dated 17.01.2014, and executed other related documents in favour of the bank. The loan was disbursed on 22.01.2014, with an agreement to repay the amount in instalments along with interest at 14% per annum. However, he failed to pay the instalments as per schedule, and as such, on 31.03.2017 there was an outstanding balance amount in the sum of Rs.7,18,686/-. Accused in order to discharge the liability to pay/clear the dues/debts of complainant bank, issued POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-22677-2025 in/and -3- CRM-A-1043-2019 a cheque No.421266 dated 24.08.2017 amounting to Rs.2,73,724/- as part payment under account No.32290912109 drawn at State Bank of India, Branch Chandigarh in favour of complainant bank. The cheque was presented by the complainant within the prescribed time for collection through Punjab National Bank, Jalalabad(W), but was dishonoured with the return memo dated 29.08.2017 with the remarks "Account Blocked & Inoperative Account." The complainant notified the accused of the dishonour and requested payment either in cash or by depositing funds in the account. However, the accused refused, admitting that the cheque was issued with dishonest intent to cheat and defraud the complainant. Consequently, the complainant served a legal notice dated 22.09.2017 via Registered AD and postal certificate, demanding payment within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. Despite receipt of the notice, the accused failed to make payment. As no amount has been paid till date, the complainant is left with no option except to file this complaint against the accused. 3. It is contended that the judgment passed by the trial Court suffers from grave illegality, perversity and the same is based upon surmises and conjectures and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the trial Court has wrongly observed that the complainant/appellant gave the benefit of acquittal to the respondent-accused on the ground that there are certain discrepancies in the version of the complainant, which culminated into being the defence of accused probable and trustworthy. Such an erroneous finding deserves to be set aside as the trial Court has utterly failed to appreciate the well proven oral as well documentary evidence of the complainant. POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-22677-2025 in/and -4- CRM-A-1043-2019 4. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in order to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the complainant/appellant has examined Varun Suneja, Field Officer, the then Branch Manager of the complainant’s Bank as CW-1, who tendered into evidence the original cheque Ex. C1, memos as Ex. C2 & Ex. C3, legal notice as Ex. C4, postal receipt as Ex. C5, register cover with report as Ex. C6, copy of account statement as Ex. C7 and resolution as Ex. C8, copy of registered mortgage deed No.4861 dated 17.01.2014 as Ex. C9. 5. It is further argued that the learned Trial Court has erroneously concluded that the complainant filed the present complaint based on an unascertained debt or liability and failed to explain how the amount stated in the cheque was calculated or how the account was settled with the accused. The Court also observed that the complainant did not state whether the ₹ accused was still liable to pay the loan amount of 5,00,000/-. However, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that during the entire trial, the respondent-accused has neither denied his signatures on the cheque nor on the registered mortgage deed No.4861, dated 17.04.2014 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jalalabad in favour of the appellant/complainant. 6. It has been further contended that the trial Court has further ignored the fact that the signatures of the accused/respondent on the cheque in question are sufficient to draw the presumptions contained under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further contends that the trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that once the signature of the accused is admitted on the cheque in question then it was for the accused to prove that how blank POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-22677-2025 in/and -5- CRM-A-1043-2019 signed cheque was given to the complainant-appellant and for what purpose the said cheque was delivered. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. 8. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court, it is evident that during the cross-examination of Mr. Varun Suneja, Field Officer, authorised representative of the bank, he was unable to produce any cogent evidence on the judicial file to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. He also failed to justify or corroborate the link between the cheque and the disbursement of the amount on 22.01.2024 in his evidence as CW-1 and admitted that he didn’t know why the cheque had been kept in his possession for such a long time. It has been further evident from the judgment that the complainant-Varun Suneja also failed to provide any vouchers or borrower receipts to prove that the loan amount was disbursed to the accused. He also admitted that these documents were neither with the bank nor on the court record. As a result, it appears that the complainant lodged the present complaint against the accused-respondent based on unascertained debt or liability and even failed to explain how the amount stated in the cheque was calculated or how the account was settled with the accused because complainant nowhere stated that accused is still liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan. 9. Moreover, presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable presumptions and same are rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities. It is a settled principle of law that once the defence is able to POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-22677-2025 in/and -6- CRM-A-1043-2019 rebut the presumption under the NI Act, it is for the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the same has been supported by the Apex Court in M/s Kumar Exports vs M/s Sharma Carpets Crl Appeal No. 2045 of 2008 . 10. On perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court dated 14.02.2019, this Court is of the considered view that the said judgment is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The ground of acquittal, as has been culled out by the trial Court, cannot be said to be faulty, requiring any interference by this Court. The allegations are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, and, therefore, the benefit of doubt has rightly been granted to the accused-respondent. 11. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the strong view that no fault can be found with the judgment passed by the trial court and as such, the present application under section 378(4) Cr.P.C stands declined as well the appeal, having no merit, stands dismissed. (Sandeep Moudgil) 29.05.2025 Judge Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2025.06.20 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document