1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No. 459-MA of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 10.2.2010 *** Jeet Singh .. Applicant-Appellant VS. Santosh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The trial of the respondent in a privately instituted complaint by the applicant Jeet Singh for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, has culminated into his acquittal, leading to the filing of the instant application seeking leave of this Court to file an appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.2009. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and find no reasonable and justifiable ground to accord the leave sought for. It emerges out from the record that the complainant filed the impugned complaint alleging that the accused forged the cheque No. 960672 relating to his saving account, which was lost on 13.3.2000, in respect of which a DDR was also entered with the police on 16.3.2000 and fill up the same for an amount of Rs.2 lacs and presented the same before her banker for encashment. Since the complainant stopped the payment, the cheque could not be encashed and ultimately the accused sue him for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of that cheque. It is the consistent case of the complainant that the cheque in question was lost on 13.3.2000 and it was presented by the accused on 26.4.2000 after forging the same. But the own witness of the complainant 2 i.e. CW1 KDP Singh, Clerk from the Oriental Bank of Commernce, Sunam totally demolished the case of the complainant when he admitted in his cross examination that earlier on two occasions i.e. on 16.11.1999 and 19.11.1999 accused presented the said cheque for encashment, but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. This totally demolished the case of the complainant and negated its plea that the said cheque was lost on 13.3.2000 and accused filled it for an amount of Rs.2 lacs, whereas, as noticed above, it came in the evidence of CW1 that the said cheque was presented on 16.11.1999 and 19.11.1999 i.e. much prior to its alleged missing, by the respondent. It also reveals from the impugned judgment that the complaint of the complainant was silent on this aspect of the matter. This rightly led the Court below to conclude that there is nothing to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence and consequently acquitted the respondent. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Court below are either perverse or illegal or based on no evidence. Dismissed. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE February 10,2010 Jiten