PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). The Trial court vide judgment 17.11.2011 acquitted the respondent qua offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the applicant-complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the instant application deserves dismissal. The Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent has observed as under:-

(2.) The reasons given by the Trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent, are sound reasons. The applicant had failed to establish that the cheque in question was duly signed/issued by the respondent. Although, at one stage respondent had offered to pay the money in question to the applicant but the learned Trial Court rightly held that the respondent might have admitted his liability to pay the amount to the petitioner but had not admitted the issuance of the cheque in question by him in favour of the applicant. The respondent would be liable to be punished qua dishonour of cheque but not qua any civil liability.

(3.) Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 1 RCR(Cri) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 1 RCR(Cri) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under: