HARVINDER SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this petition for granting leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 18.5.2017 delivered in Criminal Case No.22714/2010 by JMFC, Indore; whereby, learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1881) observing that the complainants/petitioners could not show valid source of money credited by him and that disputed cheque was given as a security. The issue has been considered by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 8 to 16 and paragraphs 17 and 18 respectively. The findings of learned trial Court are well supported by the evidence produced by the parties, which is properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. The fact that the disputed cheque was given as a security has been admitted by the petitioner not only before the trial Court but also in the present petition filed before this Court.

(2.) The law is well settled that when a cheque is given as a security the provisions of Section 138 of the Act 1881, do not attract.

(3.) In this regard, we can usefully refer the case of Sudhir Kumar Bhalla v. Jagdish Chand reported in (2008) 7 SCC 137 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 11 at page 143 and M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 30 at page 46. Paragraphs 22 of Sudhir Kumar Bhalla (supra) reads as follows:-