TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the pre-charge evidence of the appellant corroborated by the evidence of the expert opinion in regard to the interpolation in and fabrication of the cheques by adding one more figure '0' to make ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 3,00,000/- and similarly adding one more figure '0' to make ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 4,00,000/-. In the backdrop of the facts of these cases, we are of the opinion that the judgments and orders of the High Court cannot be sustained on the premise that the High Court has not addressed itself on the above-said two legal questions raised by the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgments and orders dated 25.01.2007 and 19.02.2007 are set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court to decide the appeals filed by the respondent against the appellant and criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking for quashing the first information reports registered against the respondent and his wife. Needless to say that any observation made by us in this judgment shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases, which shall be decided by the High Court on their own merits in accordance with law. Appeals shall stand dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same were received back on 28/29.5.1997 with a report that the addressee was 'not met'. The respondent again sent another notice on 04.06.1997 through courier, which again was not accepted by the appellant and the same was received back on 05.06.1997 with the report of refusal. It was on 13.06.1997 that the respondent, on his behalf and on behalf of his wife as her attorney, filed five criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, against the appellant. On 09.07.1997, the respondent-complainant made a statement that he wanted to withdraw the said complaint with permission to file the fresh complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 09.07.1997 passed the following order:- In view of the statement given by the complainant, recorded separately, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 5. On 12.07.1997, the respondent filed second complaint on similar and practically the same points purported to have accrued on identical causes of action. The second complaint was entrusted to the Court of Judicial Magistra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd his wife were quashed. By order dated 19.02.2007, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 8 lacs and in default thereof, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. of one year. Hence, the appellant has preferred these appeals. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined the entire material placed on record. 8. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the judgment of the High Court inter alia contending : - (i) that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the statement of the respondent- complainant in which he admitted that all the cheques were filled by him, the date and figures of the amounts were also in his handwriting and the appellant simply had signed the cheques. According to the learned counsel, the cheques in question have been forged and fabricated by the respondent by making material alteration by changing figure in digit from ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 3,00,000/- by adding 'zero' at the end of ₹ 30,000/- and ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 4,00,000/- by adding 'zero' at the end of ₹ 40,000/-; and (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of principal amount is due from the accused. 12. The respondent again stated as under:- The cheque No.442347 is in my hands which is dated 5.5.1997 but the same is signed by accused Sudhir Kumar Bhalla. All the cheques which are subject-matter of other complaints are filled in by me and are signed by Sudhir Kumar Bhalla accused. The dates on the cheques are also in my hands. The amount of the cheques in words and figures are also in my hands. I can read the contents of the cheques clearly. 13. On 05.05.2000, the trial court on the basis of the statement of the respondent-complainant in his cross- examination made the following observations:- At this stage, counsel for accused had made a request for giving note regarding the demoneur of the witness as well as to give note on the aforesaid fact so that the document may not be tampered with subsequent. Heard, without commenting upon the demoneur of the witness at this stage. I have observed from cheque No. 442349 dated 3.5.1997 the last zero of the figure written in the column of rupees is separate from the remaining four zeros which are attached with each other in the same flow. 14. Thereafter, on 21.05.2001 the cheques were sent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheques subsequently, but it was clearly in consonance with the wishes of Sudhir Kumar Bhalla, who had issued the cheques by depicting the amounts in words also. That apart, there is cogent evidence on record in the shape of original bills and the complete details of the prices of the goods supplied and the registers of account, which could not be countered by Sudhir Kumar Bhalla during the course of evidence. In view of the overwhelming evidence in favour of Jagdish Chand, the findings of the trial court awarding an acquittal to Sudhir Kumar Bhalla are unsustainable. On the basis of the above discussion, it is held that Sudhir Kumar Bhalla, who was one of the partners of M/s Sudhir Kumar Bhalla Brothers, Ludhiana, issued the cheques in question to discharge the liability of his firm and on presentation thereof by Jagdish Chand and Ramesh Rani, the same were dishonoured. Thus, he had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. This court holds him accordingly guilty for the same in each of the appeals. For the reason that the findings qua interpolation in the cheques in question have been categorically set aside, the proceedings against Jagdish Chand and Rame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
