Criminal Misc. No.223-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.223-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 26.8.2008 Manmohan Singh .....Appellant Versus Jasbir Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. The plea filed by the appellant Manmohan Singh for the prosecution of the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was negatived by the learned trial Court. It was recorded by the trial Court that the admission made by the respondent/accused conceding the issuance of impugned cheque under his signature notwithstanding, the plea raised by the petitioner/complainant that he gave that amount out of the agricultural income during the relevant period had not been cemented by income-tax return record (Ex. D2 and Ex. D3) for the relevant period i.e. 2004-05 and 2005-06. Those two documents do not indicate that the appellant/complainant earned any agricultural income during that period. This Court, the trial Court noticed, enabled the respondent/accused to successfully rebut the Criminal Misc. No.223-MA of 2008 -2- **** presumption which would have normally arisen in the case of an admission about issuance of a negotiable instrument i.e. a cheque. Learned trial Court also noticed that the cheque was proved to have been issued by respondent/accused as a security for a loan which has been raised by one Gurdial Singh from the petitioner/complainant. (“The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the cheque in dispute was issued as security of the amount taken by him from Gurdial Singh at the time of execution of the agreement. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the accused has referred to the cheque Ex. P1 wherein on the back of the cheque, it has been specifically written that cheque was issued as security of the loan amount. Reliance can be made on M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani Versus State of Kerala and another, 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 468 (S) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose, the same does not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.”) In that very context, learned Trial Magistrate also reliance upon “Goa Handicrafts, Rural and Small Scale Industries Development Coirporation Ltd. Versus M/s Samundra Ropes Pvt. Ltd. 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 726”. The Court noticed that it has been held by the High Court in case “that where the cheque was given as collateral security, cheque was never meant to be deposited and if such cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability”. Criminal Misc. No.223-MA of 2008 -3- **** Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argues that respondent/accused had tried to confuse the issue by relying upon the endorsement appearing on the rear of the impugned cheque. The real position, learned counsel argues, is that the endorsement is indicative of the fact that it was being issued to secure the impugned loan itself. The plea is held to be devoid of merit. The endorsement on the rear of the cheque is very significant in determining the real character of the document afore-mentioned. Once respondent/accused was issuing a cheque in recognition of a liability, it did not have to indicate that the cheque was being issued as a security. The line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Magistrate is appropriate and deserves affirmation. 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 Misc. No.223-MA of 2008 -4- ****