Criminal Appeal No. 522-MA of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 522-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 4.9.2008 Sushil Bhatia .....Appellant Versus Subhash Chander Bhatia ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** S. D. ANAND, J. The present plea filed by appellant/complainant to obtain invalidation of the impugned finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate in favour of respondent/accused, deserves to be invalidated for the reasons indicated hereunder:- The respondent/accused filed a (private) complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 IPC, on an allegation that a cheque ( No. 300003 dated 1.12.2000 for Rs.1,75,000/-) issued by respondent/accused in lieu of an already existing liability bounced on account of insufficiency of funds and the respondent/accused did not pay up even after the service of the statutory notice in the relevant behalf had been effected upon him. On perusal of the evidence adduced at the trial, the learned Trial Magistrate noticed that the appellant (complainant) had not been able to prove that cheque had been issued in lieu of a debt. Learned Trial Criminal Appeal No. 522-MA of 2007 -2- Magistrate recorded the following finding in that context:- “From the discussion of the above evidenced, it is revealed that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in view of the relinquishment of the claim in H. No. 1521 Sector 11-12, Phase-II, HUDA, Panipat. There is a specific condition embodied in Ex. P1 which says that in case the above cheques are not encashed, the compromise will stand cancelled. From this, it is apparent that the cheques were never issued by the accused for discharging any debit, liability or security. It appears that the complainant instead of enforcing agreement Ex. P-1 for his rights, has chosen this course. The complainant has not been able to prove that the cheque was issued to discharge security and legally recoverable debt or security. As he has not been able to prove that the cheque was issued to discharge security any legally recoverable debt or security. As he has not been able to fulfill the fore most condition required to make out an offence within the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, no offence is made out against the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.” Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to argue that the impugned finding proceeds on a factual incorrect premise. The finding is, even otherwise, relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Magistrate. Dismissed. September 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Appeal No. 522-MA of 2007 -3-