IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1744 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Avtar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Nishan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of acquittal of respondent No.1 recorded by the appellate Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No.1 was prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as 420 IPC. In the complaint, it was stated that the accused/respondent No.1 had availed a loan from the petitioner/complainant on 10.1.2003 for his personal necessity and in order to discharge his legal debt liability he had given post dated cheque, which was presented and was not honoured. As per the appellate Court, the liability arose because of the post dated cheque No.846616, dated 6.10.2003. Counsel contends that cheque number mentioned in the complaint was 846617 dated 6.10.2003. The counsel then submits that the order of conviction was reversed by the appellate Court, who even did not care to correct the cheque number, which was subject matter of the complaint. As per the counsel, the said cheque related to some Criminal Revision No.1744 of 2011 -2- other transaction. The defence projected by respondent No.1 was that one Harjinder Singh was working as driver with him and that he used to look after his work in his absence and had been receiving payments through cheques as well as in cash. He had left certain signed cheques in the custody of Harjinder Singh to meet the unforeseen requirement to discharge liability during his absence, if any occasion arose. Harjinder Singh became dishonest and so was removed from service by respondent No.1. The allegation against Harjinder Singh was also that he has stolen three cheques. These cheques allegedly have been utilized by the complainant and presented before the bank. Much prior to this, respondent No.1 had approached the bank not to pay any amount in lieu of these three cheques, which according to him were stolen. Not only this, respondent No.1 had already moved the Court of competent jurisdiction regarding three cheques having been stolen and misuse of the cheques and the proceedings are in progress. Considering his defence, the appellate Court has recorded acquittal of respondent No.1. During the cross-examination, it could be established that the complainant had no source to advance a huge amount. Accordingly, the story as projected in the complaint was disbelieved. It has also come on record that Harjinder Singh was related to the complainant and thus, the chances could be ruled out that in order to teach a lesson to respondent No.1, these cheques were stolen and misutilized. In this background, reference to cheque Criminal Revision No.1744 of 2011 -3- number, which forms part of these cheques would not be material. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. October 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE