Mrs. Veena Bhatia And Another vs Baljinder Singh on 3 November, 2009

Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009                               -1-

                                ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
              AT CHANDIGARH

                         Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009
                         Date of decision : 3.11.2009

Mrs. Veena Bhatia and another                             .....Petitioner

                   Versus

Baljinder Singh                                            ...Respondent

                                ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present: Mr.Ramajeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.


S. D. ANAND, J.

The respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under
Sections 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against the petitioner on an averment that a cheque, issued by the latter in
favour of the former in discharge of a legal debt, was not honoured on
account of stop payment instructions issued to the banker by complainant
and the petitioner did not pay up inspite of issuance of a statutory notice.

In the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the
respondent-complainant applied for leave of the Court to amend the
averment in the complaint and to aver thereby that cheque had bounced
on account of insufficiency of funds. That amendment was proposed to be
made in place of original averment that the cheque was not honoured on
account of stop payment instructions issued by the petitioner-accused.

The learned Trial Magistrate allowed the plea for amendment.
It is that order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate which is under
challenge before this Court.

Whether the cheque bounced on account of stop payment
instructions or on account of insufficiency of funds is a matter qua which
documented evidence has to be adduced. The bank record would be best
form of documented presentation to be made by the respondent-
complainant to obtain a finding of conviction. Whether the initially made
Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 -2-

****

averment was correct or the averment allowed by way of amendment was
correct would be for the learned Trial Magistrate to see on the basis of
evidence adduced by the complainant. It will be, then, for the learned Trial
Magistrate to appreciate evidence in the totality of the circumstances of the
case. It is not a case where the respondent-complainant would be enabled
by the allowed amendment to adduce verbal evidence. Infact, the cat may
be out of the bag even in the light of the contents of the statutory notice.
Be that as it may, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the
allowance of the plea aforementioned.

Dismissed.

November 03, 2008                                     (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                     JUDGE

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No
Criminal Misc. No.M-30709 of 2009 -3-

****