RAM CHAND Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had faced the trial in complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court vide judgment 6.7.2013 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in treating the case as a civil suit whereas in fact, the Trial Court was liable to proceed against the respondent qua commission of criminal offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the alleged out of Court settlement could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court.

(2.) In the present case, appellant had filed the complaint against the respondent qua dishonour of cheque dated 10.9.2008 in the sum of Rs. 75,000/-. When the cheque in question was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. The learned Trial Court, while acquitting the respondent, has placed reliance on receipt Ex. D1 dated 14.2.2010. As per the said receipt, the appellant had received the payment qua the cheque amount in question. There was nothing on record to suggest that the receipt in question had not been signed by the appellant. Since the appellant had received the amount in question, the learned Trial Court rightly ordered the acquittal of the respondent.

(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.