Criminal Misc.-A No.538-MA of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-A No.538-MA of 2009 Date of decision : 26.10.2009 Sat Pal Monga .....Appellant Versus Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.K.Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. The appellant-complainant was non suited by the learned Trial Magistrate on a finding that he had not been able to prove wherefrom he arranged a sum of Rs.19 lacs which he allegedly gave to the respondent- accused who was alleged to have been issued a cheque in lieu thereof. In that very context, it was noticed that the bank accounts of the complainant were also not supportive of averment made on behalf of the appellant- complainant that he was in a position to lend such a huge amount. The plea that appellant-complainant had obtained a loan of that amount ( Rs. 19 lacs from his relative Bhajan Singh Gambhir) was not proved on account of the non production of the alleged relative or any documentation in the relevant behalf. The learned Trial Magistrate further recorded a finding of fact that the appellant-complainant had concealed the fact that he is real uncle of the respondent-accused. He was further found to have refrained from averring in the complaint that he and respondent-accused Criminal Misc.-A No.538-MA of 2009 -2- **** were partners in a petrol pump. These two relevant facts were neither mentioned in the complaint nor in the examination-in-chief, however, the appellant-complainant had to concede facts aforementioned in the course of the cross-examination. Thus, the finding recorded was that the appellant-complainant had not been able to prove that there was any debt against the respondent-accused in lieu whereof respondent had issued cheque. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. October 26, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No