Criminal Misc.A-267-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.A-267-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 3.12.2008 M/s Sajan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajvir Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner/complainant has applied for the leave of this Court to appeal against the impugned finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Magistrate. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 IPC, on the allegations which may be indicted as under:- One Sarabjit Singh took the impugned hire purchase advance from the petitioner against a guarantee furnished by respondent/accused. Inspite of having been approached a number of times to pay up requisite amount of instalment, Sarabjit Singh aforementioned defaulted. Ultimately, respondent/accused/surety Rajbir Kaur issued the impugned cheque which, on presentation, bounced on account of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner/complainant issued the required statutory notice to the respondent/accused but it did not bear any fruit, thereby impelling the petitioner/complainant to file a (private) complaint. Criminal Misc.A-267-MA of 2007 -2- **** Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a finding of exoneration by holding that the witness examined as CW-1 (Amrik Singh) had not produced hire purchase agreement on account of non availability and also on account of his inability to indicate who exactly had filled up the contents of the impugned cheque Ex. C4. That witness had joined the employment of the petitioner company after the previous incumbent through whom the impugned complaint had been filed resigned. He further testified that the hire purchase agreement had been returned to the loanee in November, 2002. Learned Magistrate further noticed that CW-1 Amrik Singh had admitted that no documentation regarding furnishing of guarantee had been furnished by respondent/accused who also issued the impugned cheque at the time the hire purchase agreement was entered into by her husband Sarabjit Singh with the petitioner/complainant. In that context, learned Trial Magistrate also recorded the following finding of fact:- “Said Harbans Singh, through whom the present complaint was filed was examined in preliminary evidence but thereafter has not stepped into the witness box to prove the allegations made in the complaint and further CW 1 Shri Amrik Singh has no where stated in his evidence that he is fully aware of the facts of the present complaint or that all the transactions or part of the transactions were witnessed by him. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that all the acts starting from execution of Hire Purchase Agreement, advancement of loan to Sarabji9t Singh and thereafter issuance of the alleged cheque by the accused and thereafter presentation of disputed cheque with the bank or issuance of notice to the accused were undertaken by him in total Criminal Misc.A-267-MA of 2007 -3- **** exclusion of the payee or holder in due course. “ I find that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge is relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. December 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE