Crl. Appeal No.351-MA of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.351-MA of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 Brij Mohan Gupta ........Appellant Versus Charanjit Singh ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. SABINA, J. Complainant Brij Mohan Gupta filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.4.2008, learned trial Court acquitted respondent of the charge framed against him. The complainant has filed this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:- “2. Brief facts of the complaint as per averments made in the complaint are that the complaint is doing the business of Brass scrape and accused has been dealing with complainant for purchasing of the same on credit basis from time to time. Accused Crl. Appeal No.351-MA of 2008(O&M) 2 had been making part payments from time to time to the complainant for which complainant has been maintaining a regular accounts. In consideration of having purchased the material from the complainant, accused issued two cheques bearing No. 028566 dt. 25.6.03 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and another cheque bearing No.028567 dt. 9.7.03 for sum of Rs.10,000/- drawn on the Citizen Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Office Kishanpura, Jalandhar, with the assurance that the cheques are good for payment and will be honoured on its presentation. On relying upon the assurance given by the accused, complainant presented the aforesaid cheques through his bankers Central Bank of India, Branch Mi Hiran Gate, Jalandhar, for encashment, but the same were returned dishonoured vide memo dt. 27.6.03 and 12.7.03 on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter on 31.7.2003 the complainant served a legal notice upon the accused calling him to pay the amount within prescribed period of 15 days from the receipt of notice, but the accused failed to pay the same despite due service which necessitated filing of the present complaint on 29.8.2003.” Respondent faced the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The trial Court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was material alteration in the cheque in question. The date of the cheque had been altered from 25.6.2001 to the year 2003. In this regard the respondent examined Hand Writing Expert as DW1 and the Hand Writing Expert gave the report that the signatures in questions were written with the help of advance finger movement and the signatures on the altered date Crl. Appeal No.351-MA of 2008(O&M) 3 were not of the respondent. Since there was material alteration in the cheque in question, the learned trial Court rightly held that the respondent was entitled for acquittal. It has been further observed by the learned trial Court that the cheque in question had been issued by way of security. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondent, are sound reasons. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” Learned counsel has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (SABINA) April 28, 2010 JUDGE Anand