Judgment:
CRM-A-834-MA-2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-834-MA-2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.07.2014 Velrose Pharmaceuticals ..Appellant Versus Karan Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Prateek Rathee, Advocate for Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 has been dismissed and the accused have been acquitted of the offence charged against him.
Velrose Pharmaceutical, Hisar through Sh.Vineet Gupta, its proprietor initiated the criminal proceedings on the premise that the complainant had supplied medicines to the accused and in discharge of their liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No.24735916 dated 15.06.2009 for Rs.18,099/- drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Red Square Market, Hisar.
The cheque, on its presentation to the bank for encashment, got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
The accused failed to make payment of cheque amount despite receipt of statutory legal notice.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court Davinder Kumar 2014.07.09 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-834-MA-2013 (O&M) 2 committed a serious error in dismissing the complaint for once the accused had admitted issuance of the cheque in dispute which was proved to be dishonoured for sufficient funds and the accused had failed to make payment of cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice, there was no option with the trial Court except to convict the accused.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
Apart from the fact that the appeal is barred by limitation, there is no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
The learned trial Court in para 11 of the judgment has recorded reasons for its refusal to accept the contention of the complainant that the cheque in dispute was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.
The complainant (appellant) set out a case that the cheque amounting to Rs.18,099/- was issued by the accused towards value of medicines supplied by the complainant to the accused.
During cross-examination of the complainant, he admitted that four cartons containing medicines were returned by the accused and as per bill Ex.P6 only 140 injections worth Rs.4659/- had been supplied to the accused.
The complainant changed his stance and stated that the accused had borrowed two amounts of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3440/- in cash raising liability of Rs.18,099/- including value of medicines supplied.
Admittedly, no such plea was raised by the complainant that the accused issued the cheque in dispute towards value of medicines worth Rs.4659/- and repayment of loan of Rs.13,440/-.
Counsel for the appellant has nothing to submit that the findings of fact recorded in para 11 of the judgment are based on misreading of evidence or the trial Court has failed to take into consideration any Davinder Kumar 2014.07.09 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-834-MA-2013 (O&M) 3 material part of the evidence adduced by him.
As the complainant raised contradictory pleas in his pleadings and evidence, his testimony, otherwise, is not worthy of credence and reliance to form basis of conviction.
Hence, I do not find any error much less illegality in the judgment as would call for intervention.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE July 01, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.07.09 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document