Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 Date of decision : 3.11.2009 Mrs. Veena Bhatia and another .....Petitioner Versus Baljinder Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Ramajeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under Sections 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner on an averment that a cheque, issued by the latter in favour of the former in discharge of a legal debt, was not honoured on account of stop payment instructions issued to the banker by complainant and the petitioner did not pay up inspite of issuance of a statutory notice. In the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the respondent-complainant applied for leave of the Court to amend the averment in the complaint and to aver thereby that cheque had bounced on account of insufficiency of funds. That amendment was proposed to be made in place of original averment that the cheque was not honoured on account of stop payment instructions issued by the petitioner-accused. The learned Trial Magistrate allowed the plea for amendment. It is that order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate which is under challenge before this Court. Whether the cheque bounced on account of stop payment instructions or on account of insufficiency of funds is a matter qua which documented evidence has to be adduced. The bank record would be best form of documented presentation to be made by the respondent- complainant to obtain a finding of conviction. Whether the initially made Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 -2- **** averment was correct or the averment allowed by way of amendment was correct would be for the learned Trial Magistrate to see on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant. It will be, then, for the learned Trial Magistrate to appreciate evidence in the totality of the circumstances of the case. It is not a case where the respondent-complainant would be enabled by the allowed amendment to adduce verbal evidence. Infact, the cat may be out of the bag even in the light of the contents of the statutory notice. Be that as it may, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the allowance of the plea aforementioned. Dismissed. November 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 -3- ****