115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JAI SINGH GANGA LAL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present judgment dated Faridabad as well as impugned judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, by both the Courts below in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Briefly stated, the the respondent on account of friendly relations. In discharge his legal the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.374206 dated 12.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 19.12.2006 with remark served a legal notice dated 22.12.2006 upon the respondent, however, the respondent failed to make the payment. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, as well as impugned judgment dated Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby respondent by both the Courts below in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Briefly stated, the applicant had given a loan of Rs.1,20,000/ the respondent on account of friendly relations. In discharge his legal the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.374206 dated 12.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- payable at State Bank of India, Ballabhgarh. However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 19.12.2006 with remarks “Funds Insufficient” served a legal notice dated 22.12.2006 upon the respondent, however, the respondent failed to make the payment. Hence, the complaint IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-441-MA-2012 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR applicant. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the respondent. has been filed against the impugned passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, as well as impugned judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned , whereby respondent has been acquitted by both the Courts below in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable applicant had given a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the respondent on account of friendly relations. In discharge his legal liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.374206 dated 12.12.2006 for an payable at State Bank of India, Ballabhgarh. However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured vide return memo s “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the applicant served a legal notice dated 22.12.2006 upon the respondent, however, the Hence, the complaint. MANISHA 2025.04.28 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-441-MA 3. Having heard the learned perusing the record of the case with there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution CW-1 in his examination by way of loan was with interes accepted that the interest was @ 2 %, which was subsequently discharged by the help of Panchayat same. Furthermore, the defence counsel has examined handwriting DW-2, who has enlarged photographs of date and amount respectively, which indicates alteration and addition on the cheque. Furthermore, the respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 any cheque to the complainant but he had given a blank cheque to his partner Sunder in the year 2005 with his signatures to deposit the same in Provident Fund for the workers complainant/applicant against the accused failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. evidence led by the Court. 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 of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the vie 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 MA-2012 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution 1 in his examination-in-chief has nowhere deposed that the amount given by way of loan was with interest, whereas, in his cross accepted that the interest was @ 2 %, which was subsequently discharged by Panchayat, but no one was examined in the Court to prove the same. Furthermore, the defence counsel has examined handwriting 2, who has enlarged photographs of date and amount respectively, which indicates alteration and addition on the cheque. Furthermore, the respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the complainant but he had given a blank cheque to his partner Sunder in the year 2005 with his signatures to deposit the same in Provident Fund for the workers. As such, only vague allegations are levelled by the complainant/applicant against the accused/respondent failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. evidence led by the applicant/complainant does 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 witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the counsel for the parties and after able assistance, it transpires that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as chief has nowhere deposed that the amount given t, whereas, in his cross-examination, he has accepted that the interest was @ 2 %, which was subsequently discharged by , but no one was examined in the Court to prove the same. Furthermore, the defence counsel has examined handwriting expert as 2, who has enlarged photographs of date and amount respectively, which indicates alteration and addition on the cheque. Furthermore, the respondent in Cr.P.C. stated that he did not give the complainant but he had given a blank cheque to his partner Sunder in the year 2005 with his signatures to deposit the same in Provident As such, only vague allegations are levelled by the respondent and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. As a result, the es not inspire confidence of this The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards w 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 MANISHA 2025.04.28 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-441-MA prosecution witnesses. ( 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 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. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied. April 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) MA-2012 3 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 further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the applicant perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned 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 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 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. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Courts below 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 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment