Criminal Appeal No.227-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.227-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 26.8.2008 M/s Midland Financiers (Doaba) Limited .....Appellant Versus Ravinder Singh and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None S. D. ANAND, J. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against respondent No.1/accused on the allegation that a cheque (bearing No. 476502 dated 5.9.2003) for Rs.3,50,000/-, issued by the latter in favour of former, in discharge of an existing liability had bounced on account of closure of the account and the respondent did not pay up even after the statutory notice in the context had been served upon him. Learned Trial Magistrate noticed that the “ PW2 Sohan Singh has admitted that the complainant company is income-tax assessee and the entire record is being maintained by it. But it is not proved the record of alleged loan account relating to the accused, due to which an adverse inference is drawn against it. This witness has even deposed that he does not remember as to for what purpose the loan was availed by the accused”. It was further been held by learned Trial Magistrate that “he has Criminal Appeal No.227-MA of 2008 -2- **** also deposed that the loan amount was of Rs.2,25,000/-, which was paid to the accused through a cheque issued in his name. But the record of the said cheque is not proved/produced and has been withheld by the complainant. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the legally enforceable liability of the accused”. The learned Trial Magistrate further noticed as under:- “From the evidence adduced by the complainant in this complaint itself has rebutted the presumption. Though it is proved that the cheque was dishonoured as the account was closed and a notice was served upon the accused. But the complainant has failed to produce in record relating to the loan account of accused to show the outstanding amount of Rs.3,50,000/- or more. The evidence of complainant has created doubts in its version. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. There is no sufficient evidence on the file to prove guilt of the accused.” I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtained on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. August 26, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Appeal No.227-MA of 2008 -3- ****