1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 584-MA of 2007 O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 *** Kuldip Gaba .. Appellant Vs. Ajay Kumar. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present applicant-complainant is seeking leave of the Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 10.7.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa by virtue of which the respondent-accused has been acquitted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. A perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the cheque in question, which was dishonoured, was found to be of account No. 27515, which, as testified by DW3 Om Parkash Khetarpal, Deputy Manager of the Bank, was not pertaining to the accused but was in the name of his father Lajja Ram, which is not controverted by the complainant. Even no attempt was made by the complainant to prove that the signatures appearing on the impugned cheque were those of accused Ajay. This rightly led the Court below to conclude, while relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Deepa Finance Corporation Vs. A.K. Mohammed 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 206 that the pre-requisites to prove an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are conspicuously missing. Although a prayer for leading additional evidence to examine Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert and one Rajesh Harit, in whose presence the amount was 2 handed over to the complainant, has been made, but the said application has not been pressed by learned counsel for the applicant, besides this Court is of the view that no benefit could be drawn by the complainant by producing the aforesaid witnesses, in the light of the fact that he has altogether failed to prove the crucial fact that it is the accused who maintained the said bank account, of whom the cheque was issued in his favour and was dishonoured. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to fill up any lacuna left during the trial. No fault could be found with the approach of the learned trial court in acquitting the respondent-accused. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 11,2008 Jiten