P. P. AUTOMOTIVE Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/applicant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment dtd. 22/7/2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, whereby the respondent/accused was ordered to be acquitted. The learned trial Court held that the appellant had failed to prove on record that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent in discharge of his legally enforceable debt or liability and accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) In the present case, the appellant had filed the criminal complaint by alleging that the appellant is the authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Company and the respondent had purchased one Bolero Excel LMV vehicle from the appellant vide invoice dtd. 19/10/2007 for a sum of Rs.5,20,000.00. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 in cash and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.4,70,000.00 was paid by the respondent in the form of a cheque bearing No. 659812 dtd. 26/3/2008, issued in favour of the appellant, drawn on UCO Bank, Sataun, District Sirmor (HP). It was also alleged that the said cheque was issued by the respondent towards his legal liability and towards the payment of balance sale consideration of the above said vehicle, purchased by the respondent. However, when the appellant presented the said cheque for payment, through his banker, the said cheque was returned unpaid with the memo dtd. 11/4/2008, containing remarks 'insufficient funds'. After receiving the information of dishonouring of the above said cheque, the appellant got a legal notice served by registered AD on 29/4/2008 through his counsel upon the respondent, calling upon him to make the payment of the above said cheque amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. However, in spite of issuance of a legal notice, the respondent did not make the payment and the appellant was constrained to present a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Karnal with the above mentioned broad allegations. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court held that the appellant failed to prove on record that the cheque Ex.C-3 was issued by the respondent/accused in discharge of his legally enforceable debt or liability and accordingly, acquitted the respondent. The appellant had initially preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and vide the judgment dtd. 26/9/2011, the learned Sessions Court held the appeal to be not maintainable and accordingly, the present appeal was filed before this Court against the impugned judgment dtd. 22/7/2011 passed by the Court of Sh. Vivek Goyal, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the original trial Court record.