INDUSIND BANK LIMITED Vs. AMARJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking leave to appeal, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.3.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, whereby complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('N.I. Act' for short), filed by the present applicant -complainant, was dismissed and the accused -respondent was acquitted.

(2.) SHORN of the detailed factual background, it would suffice to note that respondent -Amarjeet Singh entered into a loan agreement dated 18.11.2003, with the applicant for an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/ -, for purchase of vehicle Tata LPT2515. The borrower -respondent had been paying the loan amount by way of instalments, as mutually agreed between the parties. However, borrower -respondent allegedly defaulted in making the payment and consequently, he issued cheque dated 18.7.2005 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, for an amount of Rs. 1,91,230/ - with a view to discharge his existing liability. The cheque was presented by the complainant, which was received vide memo dated 19.7.2005 with remarks "Account Closed". The applicant issued the legal notice dated 1.8.2005 through postal receipt, demanding the cheque amount but the accused did not pay the same. Thereafter, complaint was filed.

(3.) AFTER closure of evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He categorically denied the allegations and opted to lead defence evidence. Accused further stated that at the time of taking the loan, his entire cheque book was got signed by the complainant. He stated that he had never executed any cheque, while he was informed that the signed blank cheques were taken only as a formality. He next stated that the complainant bank got registered a criminal case against him, which was cancelled. In his defence evidence, the accused examined DW -1 VKB Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, Jhajjar, who placed on record his affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. He also placed on record his report Ex. DW -1/B and photographs as Ex. DW -1/C to Ex. DW1/H. Thereafter, accused closed his evidence.