Criminal Revision No. 2721 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2721 of 2008 (O&M) Dated of decision : 28.10.2009 Anil Kapoor ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma and Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby she acquitted respondent no. 2 of the charges framed against him. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered pursuant to order dated 14.3.2002 passed by Shri Heera Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar whereby the concerned SHO was directed to investigate and register the case. The complaint was filed by Anil Kapoor, proprietor of Seema Textile, against the accused respondent with the allegations that the accused had cheated him by dishonestly altering the dates on the cheques. The date on cheque bearing no. 227340 dated 29.3.2001 had been forged as 29.8.2001, whereas on cheque no. 227342 dated 16.12.2000 had been forged as 16.12.2001 and date on cheque no. 227341 had been forged from 29.3.2001 to 29.8.2001. The cheques were issued as a security regarding the money transaction but the accused-respondent dishonestly altered the dates of the cheques with an intention to lay a false claim against the complainant. He alleged that earlier cheques given by him to the accused as security had been returned by him and in lieu thereof fresh cheques were given to the accused of the similar amount. Accordingly on the basis of order passed by Shri Heera Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, on the complaint the FIR in question was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence. Considering the evidence brought on record, learned trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent as the prosecution failed to examine the complainant and other material witnesses except PW1 Yusuf Masih and PW2 Criminal Revision No. 2721 of 2008 -2- Sham Sunder. They were only the formal witnesses. Rather the case of the accused-respondent before the court below was that the present complaint was filed as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant in the court at Amritsar. PW1 has only tendered his affidavit wherein it is stated that he has deposited the sealed parcel with the Forensic Science Labotratory, Chandigarh. The charges against the accused respondent were of forging and cheating but the person who was cheated by forging the documents/ cheques had not been produced and in the absence thereof, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. The prosecution did not even produce the investigating officer in the witness box for the reasons best known to it. The original cheques were also not produced for the purpose of verification and proper adjudication and in the absence of material documents, it cannot be said that the trial court has gone wrong in acquitting the accused- respondents. There being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. Since the revision has been dismissed, the application for condonation of 128 days' delay is also dismissed. 28.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge