IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHH SGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. N0. aV ^ ^ ^ !-.-: '.. ~7 '•.•; r^ • 11~'.-'!: -. /2010 ACQUITTAL APPEAL N0. /2010 PETITIONER (COMPLAINANTI •^^^ ^.^^^- t^" \^y fflf^-•-' Laxmichand Jain S/o Tiremal Jain, aged about 30 years, Occupation- Garment Shop, R/o Naveen Bazar Kavardha, Police Station 8s Tahsil- Kavardha, Distt.- Kabeerdham (Kavardha) (C.G.). VERSUS Hansraj Agrawal S/o Dayasilal, Aged about-63 years, R/o- Near Khetan Garage, In front of Masjid Kavardha, Police Station SE Tahsil- Kavardha, Distt.- Kabeerdham (Kavardha) (C.G.). APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER RESPONDENT (ACCUSED) SECTION 378(4) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION_ 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 ^ '':zsgai. j?< ^ &"''i!5<ll Ss, ^ fti.-J?:J?: '%Ea°SieHK—78 SRI^I^I lt;-1 wn3iA?ignN? ^ST •<ii<ii<n<<, aiilyiio, fc<<riiy^< *<I*ICIT **(ra» .fe.:..Y^°. '.!.£ 3il^?[ 'q^? ('^3^,'?) TRDW ^tei sii^fi SB : Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mo 9n.,in-9nin —t'U'*i 'V—an.teFE T? bnn yamir yingn, counsei bnri iviaiay onrrvasiava, neara on aamissiora. Leamea counsei ror me p has acquitted the respondent of foi trie peiitioner. cojjnsei Tor ine responaerit. bection l.io oTNegotiaDte tnsirun nanawi'iting experi t'nat tne cnsqtie the accused whereas the opinlonl not liabie to be accepted as int prov^Q eviaence on recorci, it is Rs.50,000/- and a cheque was rte Turtner suQrnits tnat as t'ne av or cneque ana uia noi laKe any pressntirifi inecnsque wiin Torge|i comrr'iitteu gross iiiegaiiry ana pe^ On the other hand, is inai me Tinuing OT acquiiiai pjSUSiDiO vie'w, &aSeCi OFi iny I^Sij its report anci aeposeu DeTore tii c'neque are not OT tne accuseu p^rson. laKing into consiaeration for the parties as aiso taking int^ expert that the signatures on the <T>n[<?f4li ^TR^if ^f 'feT^ iFas^K ^aifinsn^r lan StinvaStavai ^. teutioner arsued that the iearned Trial Court th®charge of cornnnission of offence under |ents Act, tyol uy accepting the eviaence OT in aispuie uiu noi coniain ine Signaiures 01 ana tne eviQence OT rianuwnnng expen v»'as definite oplnion <vas given and from the that the accused had taken a ioan of h^nded over to the petitioner by tne accuseu. accusea reTusea 10 taKS notice aTter aisnonour |step against u"ie petiiioner, un ai'egaiion OT i|a sionature OT me accuseu, tne k->ourt Deiuw peiversiry in acQuiuins ins accuseci. suurnipsion or iearneu counsei TOI uie resoonueru t)v the learneu tf'ial Court is Dussibie anu moriy OT riana'wrinng expen wno nas pi'uveu e Court that the signatures on the disputed the submissions made by iearned counsei consideration the evidence of hanu writln' aispuiea cneque are noi inai OT ine accuseu, XI-HC—78 sf^v ^i Vt-fi* 'tPTT 3TT^?T sr>*iicft 1" *TCi •-iii'Lii<'i<{, ®Til'M'ic,f°<<'ti'yy,<. ^rvu>[s v^O:..s^.6./te. 3n^fTi^?('^sifg^i) "^TTW^rf^T'STI^T -V- me Tinuing or acquittai cannoi D evldence. As such, 1 do not find the order of acqulttai. p saict to ue eitner perverse or uasea on no lanv case Toi'srarii OT leave 10 apDsai auainsi Leameu counsei for the cornmission OT uitence unoer 'ioOi is maae oui, ceriainiy a 420 i.P.C. ts rnadeoutand t'nerei i nis aspect cannot De ex| is necessary. it wouiu be open for ths remsoy as may De avaiiaDieto ri| betitioner submitteci that even it no case foi' S^ctlon 138 of the Nsgotiabie instrurrients Act, ctee oT comrnission of uffence under Section fore iiueiTy rnay oe granreu. exfernineuin the present case. No such llbesty <ftl<<l<n*ftl 'RR^f'T ^ fst^t Tf^i'<£^R ^rsiRnsn^ petitior.er to taKe recourse 10 appropnaie rn unaer me ia<v. Sd/- MamndraMo^Sto-ivastava Judge