RAM KUMAR Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT had faced trial in a compliant filed by the applicant under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheque bearing No.442911 in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - on 21.09.2009. Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2012 ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent has held as under: -

(2.) IN the present case, respondent had been successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. Respondent had been successful in establishing that he had issued three blank cheques for purchase of refrigerator. In this regard, relevant documents Exhibit D1 -retail invoice of the purchase of refrigerator by Mukesh Narula and Exhibit D2 - statement of account maintained by Mukesh Narula were duly proved on record. Pardeep Kumar who had made the payment in cash qua the purchase of refrigerator, was also examined by the respondent. The said witness further deposed that the cheque in question was lost by him. The cheque number in question alongwith numbers of other two cheques, are duly mentioned in retail invoice (Exhibit D1). In this background, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the cheque in question had been mis -used by the complainant.

(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: