Criminal Misc. No.452-MA of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.452-MA of 2006 Date of decision : 9.9.2008 Subhash Chand @ Subhash Mahajan .....Petitioner Versus Shri Harbans Lal ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The present petition has been filed before this Court to obtain invalidation of the impugned order dated 2.5.2006 vide which the learned Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 IPC. The pure and simple plea of the petitioner/complainant was that a cheque issued by respondent/accused in lieu of a loan transaction of Rs. 50,000/- bounced on account of insufficiency of funds and the respondent did not pay up, even though the factum of bouncing had been intimated to him vide a statutory notice which also called upon him to make the payment of cheque amount. Respondent/accused conceded having issued the impugned cheque but raised a plea that issuance of cheque was Criminal Misc. No.452-MA of 2006 -2- **** relatable to certain 'committee' transaction to which he and the petitioner/complainant were a party. That plea was offered as against a precise plea put forward by the petitioner/complainant that the cheque had been issued in lieu of a loan of Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Trial Magistrate invalidated the presentation made by the petitioner/complainant by noticing that the date of advancement of loan had neither been given in the complaint nor in the pleadings nor in the evidence adduced at the trial. It also noticed that the petitioner/complainant had also not proved the rate of interest which was payable to him qua the loan under reference. That finding was recorded by the learned Magistrate in the context. Yet another finding of fact recorded was that the petitioner/complainant had raised yet another precise plea that he had given the impugned loan of Rs.50,000/- from out of his private account. It was in that context that the learned Trial Magistrate further noticed that the statement of account had not been produced by the petitioner/complainant. It was also recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, that the petitioner/complainant had not produced any witness to cement the loan transaction afore-mentioned and that “the complainant has not produced any evidence to rebut the contention of the accused that he had issued blank cheques towards chit fund transaction and there was not liability, especially when he has admitted chit fund transaction between the parties.” I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and Criminal Misc. No.452-MA of 2006 -3- **** there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. September 09, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE