WOCKHARDT LIMITED Vs. D.K. CHANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 13/3/2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in Criminal Appeal No.30 dtd. 1/11/2003, by which the learned lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-accused and acquitted him of the charge under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') by reversing the judgment and order dtd. 30/10/2003 in case complaint No.142 of 24/7/1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, which had convicted respondent No.1-accused of the charge under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-company.

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and order of the trial Court could not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court that too for flimsy reasons recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court. According to him, the complainant had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and by producing of the record required for proving the case and not only that there was presumption in favour of the appellant that was raised against respondent No.1-accused. The learned lower Appellate Committed committed an error in giving the reasons for acquitting respondent No.1-accused as if it was trying a civil suit ignoring the presumption that arose for dishonor of cheque. He has taken me through the evidence of the complainant-witness and the record.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1- accused opposed the appeal and argued supporting the impugned judgment of the lower Appellate Court. He also supported the reasons recorded therein that the appellant had not proved that there was any outstanding liability against respondent No.1-accused that was required to be proved by documentary evidence since the appellant is company maintaining all the records. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.