Criminal Misc. No. 94-MA of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. 94-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.3.2009 M/s Debonair Chits Pvt. Limited …Appellant Versus Anurag Kumar Jain …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Applicant/complainant had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent Anurag Kumar Jain. The complaint was tried. Anurag Kumar Jain was acquitted by the trial Court on 2.8.2008. Applicant/complainant is aggrieved against the acquittal of the respondent/accused and has filed an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal The case of complainant is that total amount of Rs.99,255/- was outstanding against accused Anurag Kumar Jain on 15.9.1999 and the accused had acknowledged his liability and had issued a cheque bearing No. 093128 dated 16.12.2001. The cheque has been exhibited as Ex.C2. Mr. Bhandari has shown me the cheque. The amount of Criminal Misc. No. 94-MA of 2009 2 cheque is Rs.1,31,784/-. The date of cheque is 16.12.2001. The trial Court has taken in to consideration letter Ex.D3 which was issued on 15.3.1997. In that letter number of cheque is mentioned as 093128 and the amount is mentioned as Rs.7,810/-. The trial Court also took into consideration that letter and the cheque were issued in 1997, the date 16.12.2001 has been written by the complainant-company. Taking the amount of cheque to be Rs.7,810/- trial Court also relied upon the testimony of DW.1 Ramesh Dutt, Clerk, Punjab National Bank, who brought the original cheque Ex.D1. The Court, after discussing the entire evidence, held as under:- “...So, the joint perusal of letter Ex.D3, photocopy of cheques Ex.D1, the entry over its back Ex.D1, was got issued by the accused to the complainant company in lieu of previous cheques bearing No. 093128 of amount of Rs.7,810/-. The cheques in question Ex.C2 also consists its number 093128 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. So, it cannot be ruled out that the complainant company even after discharge of the liability by the accused by delivery of cheques; photocopy of which is Ex.D1, in lieu of previous cheques Ex.C2, got forged the cheques in question Ex.C2 by manipulating the amount, which have been shown in digits and by writing the amount in words and date of its issuance”. After considering the entire gamut, the trial Court concluded as Criminal Misc. No. 94-MA of 2009 3 under:- “14. When it has been proved on record by documents Ex.D1, the entry over it Ex.D2 and letter Ex.D3 that no amount of Rs.99,255/- outstanding on the alleged day, rather an amount of Rs.7,810/- was outstanding against the accused in favour of the complainant company, issuance of cheques Ex.C1 containing the amount as Rs.1,31,784/- do not seem to be as believable being self vitiated by letter Ex.D3 issued by complainant company itself to the accused. Further, it has been proved on behalf of accused that liability of Rs.7810/- in relation to which cheque Ex. C2 was issued, was got discharged by issuance of another cheques bearing No. 652557 Ex.D1 in lieu of previous cheques, which is Ex.C2. When no liability was ever existing qua the accused in favour of the complainant company, the commission of offence as stated in the complaint company. Resultantly, the complainant has failed to prove his averment that the accused issued cheques Ex.C2 in respect of some legal enforceable debt or liability and he allowed the cheques to be dishonoured. Rather the presumption has very well been got rebutted by the accused. Hence, the accused stands acquitted from the charge levelled against him. His bail bond and surety bond are Criminal Misc. No. 94-MA of 2009 4 discharged. File, after due compliance, be consigned to the record room”. A finding of fact was recorded after appreciating the evidence. Counsel for the applicant/complainant has failed to dislodge this finding. The view formulated by the trial Court is one view which is possible. The Appellate Court cannot cause interference simply on the ground that another view is possible. The finding of trial Court is not perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present application is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 18, 2009 “DK”