Crl. Appeal No.350-MA of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.350-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. Gaurvjit Singh, Advocate for 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 9.3.2007, learned trial Judge 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.The complainant has averred that he is proprietor of M/s Brij Gupta & Company and is competent to file the present complaint as he is well conversant with the facts of the case. It has been further alleged that accused was Crl. Appeal No.350-MA of 2008(O&M) 2 dealing with the complainant and purchasing Brass Scraps on credit and has been making part payment from time to time to complainant and has been maintaining a regular account. It has been further alleged that in consideration of having purchased the material from the complainant accused issued cheque bearing No. 028564 dated 10.2.2003 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from his account No.CA-733 drawn from the Citizen Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. B.O. Kishanpura, Jalandhar, assuring the complainant that the cheque is good and same would be honoured on its presentation. It has been further alleged that complainant on assurance of accused, presented the said cheque for its encashment through his banker Central bank of India, Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar but the same was returned by the accused's banker with memo dated 17.2.2003 with the remarks INSUFFICIENT FUNDS and the banker of the complainant informed the complainant in this regard. It has been further alleged that by dishonouring this cheque accused has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On the receipt of the dishonoured cheque by the complainant, he got served a legal notice dated 22.2.2003 under Section 138 N.I. Act through registered/UPC cover calling upon the accused to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque to the complainant but the accused failed to make the payment. Hence, this complainant.” Respondent faced the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Crl. Appeal No.350-MA of 2008(O&M) 3 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 10.8.2001 to the year 2002 and then it was again altered to 10.2.2003. In this regard the respondent examined Hand Writing Expert as DW1 and the Hand Writing Expert gave his opinion that the altered date as well as the signatures on the altered date were not of the respondent and in fact it was a result of copied forgery and the same differed with the standard signatures 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 in the year 2001 by way of security. There were business dealings between the complainant-appellant and the respondent prior to the year 2003. 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 Crl. Appeal No.350-MA of 2008(O&M) 4 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. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) April 28, 2010 JUDGE Anand