GURDIAL SINGH Vs. GAWRITEX INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six identical applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), between the same parties, wherein applicant is seeking leave of this Court to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal, whereby six identical complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short), filed by the present applicant were dismissed, acquitting the respondentsaccused from the charges framed against them. All these applications bearing Nos. CRM-A-385 to 387-MA-2013, CRM-A-455, 456 and 498- MA-2013 (Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh v M/s Gawritex Industries Ltd. and another) are being decided by way of this common order. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRM-A-385-MA-2013. Briefly put, facts of the case are that a lease-deed dated 1.1.2004 was executed between the parties, for a period of five years, @ Rs.1.10 lacs per month. The applicant was the landlord and the respondents were the tenants. It is undisputed between the parties that the applicant had received three months' rent in advance as security, which was adjustable on the termination of the tenancy. It is also common case of the parties that the applicant-landlord received the rent for the month of January 2004 and he also received post-dated cheques from the respondents-accused upto the month of December 2004. It is further common case of the parties that the applicant had received the rent upto the month of June 2004. The accused-respondent issued notice dated 19.7.2004 to the applicant-landlord for termination of the tenancy.

(2.) was the case of the accused-respondents that premises were vacated on 19.10.2004. Although there was some dispute between the parties in this regard, yet it is not the issue involved herein. The applicantlandlord tried to encash those cheques, which were meant for the months of July 2004 onwards pleading that he was entitled for the same, because the rent of three months taken in advance was to be adjusted only after termination of the tenancy. On the other hand, accused-tenant pleaded that landlord-applicant had no right to do so, because he was bound to adjust the rent of three months taken by him in advance, immediately after the accused had vacated the premises on 19.10.2004. The cheques having been received back dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, landlord-applicant issued legal notice dated 11.12.2004, demanding the payment of cheque amount. Since the accused-tenants failed to make the payment of cheque amount, applicant filed his complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Summoning order was issued in all the six cases. Accused appeared, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Having found a prima facie case, the learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused. The complainant-applicant, in order to substantiate the charges against the accused-respondents, led his evidence. He appeared as CW-1, besides producing his other evidence including the documentary evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations, alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. Accused produced Mukesh Goyal as DW-1 in his defence evidence, besides the documentary evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant-applicant has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused. Accordingly, complaint of the applicant was dismissed and the accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him, vide impugned judgments dated 1.3.2013, passed in all the six cases. Hence these six identical applications under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has duly proved his case before the learned trial Court, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which was sufficient to record the conviction of the accused-respondent. The dispute between the parties was regarding six cheques from the month of July 2004 to December 2004. He submits that even if the premises is treated to have been vacated on 19.10.2004 by the accused-respondent, still the applicant-landlord was entitled for rent for the months of July, August, September and October. He further submits that since the learned trial Court has misdirected itself, while not appreciating the evidence available on record, in the correct perspective, the impugned judgment of acquittal was not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside all the six identical impugned judgments of acquittal, by allowing these six applications. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation initiated by the applicant.