Criminal Misc. No.306-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.306-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 27.8.2008 Nathu Ram .....Appellant Versus Mehal Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. While declining to uphold the validity of the prosecution launched by the petitioner/complainant against respondent/accused for the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the finding that impugned cheque Ex. P1 does not constitute a legal negotiable instrument inasmuch as it bears only the signatures of respondent/accused and the rest of the contents had been filled up by somebody else. (“Perusal of cheque Ex. P1 shows that the cheque bears the signatures of the accused in Punjabi but the cheque has been filled in by an well educated person in fluent English. The date and body writing of the cheque is with different handwriting and different ink. Accused signed the entry for Rs.2,65,000/- Ex. P12 in the account books of the complainant and written the amount in figures. If the accused has the sense to write Criminal Misc. No.306-MA of 2007 -2- **** the amount in figures in the account books of the complainant then what was the hitch for the accused not to write the amount in the cheque in figures. He may not be able to write the body writing in English but he was able to write the amount in figures as written in the account books. He could have written the date also. But the cheque Ex. P1 bears only the signatures of the accused. Date, body writing and amount is written by different person. This fact alone is sufficient to create doubt regarding the issuance of cheque by the accused to discharge the legal liability. Though the liability was there but there is doubt regarding issuance of cheque to discharge the legal liability.” In support of the finding, learned Magistrate also drew sustenance from the fact that respondent/accused was proved on record to have last visited the shop of the petitioner/complainant on 28.1.2003 and he is not proved to have confirmed the balance ( in the account books of the petitioner/complainant) on 15.6.2004. (“Complainant alleged in the complaint that balance towards the accused on 15.6.2004 was Rs. 4,02,157.64 but the balance was not confirmed by the accused on 15.6.04. There is no record on the file to show that accused ever visited the shop of complainant after 28.1.2003, the last entry allegedly signed by the accused in the account books of the complainant nor he confirmed the balance. In case he had gone to confirm the balance of Rs. 4,02,157/- on 15.6.2004 it can be presumed that accused approached the complainant for issuance of cheque to discharge his legal liability but Criminal Misc. No.306-MA of 2007 -3- **** the file shows that he never visited the complainant after 28.1.2003 (last entry). So the circumstances on file shows that the cheque in question was with the complainant as security.”) The finding by the learned Trial Magistrate, as also the reasoning noticed in the support thereof, deserves affirmation and it so ordered accordingly. It will be, of course, open to the petitioner/complainant to have recourse to remedy available to him on the civil side for effecting the recovery of whatever amount may be found on record to be due from respondent/accused. Disposed of accordingly. August 27, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No