Criminal Misc.325-MA of 2008(O&M) -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.325-MA of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision : 25.9.2008
M/s Shobit Polyclinic Private Ltd. .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the appellant
S. D. ANAND, J.
The petitioner/complainant an authorised stockiet of M/s
Standard Combines Private Limited for Standard Tractors, had launched a
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against
respondents no.1 and 3/accused who are its authorised dealer for the sale
of standard tractors. Respondent no.2 is the sole proprietor of firm No. 1
while respondent no.4 is the sole proprietor of respondent no.3 concern.
Respondents no.3 and 4 obtained a tractor from the
petitioner/complainant on credit basis. A sum of Rs.365750/- was
outstanding against them as on 10.1.2006. Respondents No. 1 and 3
issued a cheque of that amount to the petitioner/complainant on 17.4.2006.
It was presented but it bounced on account of insufficiency of funds. On
21.4.2006, a representative of respondent no.1/accused visited the
premises of the complainant at Hisar and handed over a cheque for Rs.
2,50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karnal in favour of
petitioner/complainant. The cheque bore the signature of respondent no.
2/accused. Along with it, respondents no. 3 and 4 also handed over a
Criminal Misc.325-MA of 2008(O&M) -2-
***
letter conceding that cheque was being issued in discharge of an
outstanding liability. However, the cheque again bounced on 24.4.2006,
with an endorsement by the banker that the amount of cheque exceeded
the arrangement made by the respondents/accused with their bank.
Learned Trial Magistrate negatived petitioner’s presentation by
observing that it was on record that respondents no. 3 and 4/accused had
already issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner/complainant for the
amount of Rs.365750/- which was dishonoured and for which an
independent complaint was pending vide Ex. D1. Learned Trial court
further held that “If the cheque was issued by accused No.1 and 2 in view
of letter Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the the complainant should not have moved the
other complaint for an amount of Rs.365750/- for not clearance. The
amount is one i.e. Rs.365750/-. Two complaints have been filed by the
complainant, the present one and Ex.D1. Rs.250000/- had to be adjusted
in Rs.365750/-. There was no direct liability to pay this amount of
Rs.250000/- to complainant by accused No.1 and 2. Only by an
agreement which is accepted as orally by PW1 in his cross examination the
arrangement was made that the accused No.1 and 2 will pay Rs.250000/-
directly to complainant, which was pending against them in favour of
accused No.3 & 4 and the complainant has already filed direct complaint
against accused No.3 and 4 for bouncing of cheque for an amount of
Rs.365750/-. That complaint is still pending, so, for an amount, two
complaints cannot go simultaneously. It is also admission of PW1 in the
cross examination that he had to take an amount of Rs.250000/- from
June, 2000 from M/s Mehar Automobiles and this amount had to be
received as a payment of the tractor, which was given to M/s Malik Tractors
and Combines. So, again there was no direct outstanding liability in favour
Criminal Misc.325-MA of 2008(O&M) -3-
***
of accused No.1 and 2, because the money had to be paid actually by
accused No.3 and 4 against which the present complaint has already been
dismissed and a separate complaint is pending filed by the complaint for
the total amount of Rs.365750/-.”
I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial
Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing
perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge.
Dismissed.
September 25, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No