← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-A/1710/2015dismissed

M/S Amrit Agrovet Pvt Ltd v. Surinder Chauhan

2016-07-27Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.6193 of 2016 in/and CRM No.A-1710-MA of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: July 27, 2016 M/s Amrit Agrovet Pvt. Ltd.

...Applicant

Versus

Surinder Chauhan

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the applicant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

CRM No.6193 of 2016 Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The application seeking leave to appeal is restored to its original number and the same is taken up for hearing today itself. Applicant-M/s Amrit Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Surinder Chauhan, challenging the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal

-2is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Gurgaon, is wrong, erroneous, unsustainable and resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.

As per the record, the complainant M/s Amrit Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint against accused Surendra Chauhan. As per the complainant's version, the accused is carrying on business of trading in poultry in the name and style of M/s. North India Chicken & Eggs Store. The accused approached the complainant and requested to supply the poultry feeds manufactured by it on credit to him. The complainant started supplying poultry feeds to the accused. The accused also started making payment to the complainant for poultry feeds purchased by him from time to time. It is further stated that the accused has a running account with the complainant. As per the running account, an amount of `1,03,875/- is outstanding against the accused. The accused in discharge of his liability, issued cheque bearing No.0125828 dated 10.10.2013 of `1,03,875/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation for encashment, was returned back unpaid with the remarks 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'. Legal notice was issued. When the payment was not made, then the complaint was filed within time.

Learned JMIC, Gurgaon, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record, especially the judgment passed by the Court below. From the record, I find that in the statement under Section 313

-3Cr.P.C., the accused took defence that he is having a firm by the name of M/s. North India Chicken & Eggs. He also admitted that on 15.06.2013, accused firm was appointed as a dealer of M/s. Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. for supply of 10,000 kg. of feed on credit basis. On account of dealership agreement, accused gave two cheques to the complainant company, out of which cheque bearing No.125827 of `5100/- was given on account of sign verification and another blank undated cheque bearing No.125828 was given as security for dispatch of feed. The cheque bearing No.125828 which was blank and undated was supposed to be filled up as per date of dispatch of feed and the bill amount. He further stated that complainant company used to ask for the cash payment and that bill was never deposited in the account books.

The accused asked to present the cheque may times but the complainant always asked for cash amount. As the complainant did not send the 100 bags, the accused suffered loss of more than `4,71,000/- and the total amount including loss was outstanding towards the complainant of more than `5 lacs. Thereafter, as a precautionary measure, on 12.08.2013, the blank undated cheque bearing No.125828, which was given on 15.06.2013 was got cancelled and its payment was stopped by the accused. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence found that the version given by the accused is probable, as the cheque bearing No.125827 of `5,100/- was got encashed on 19.06.2013 by the complainant as per the statement of account Ex.D5. Furthermore, the payment was got stopped qua cheque bearing No.125828 by the accused on 12.08.

2013, whereas the date filled in the cheque in question is 10.10.2013. When the accused has already stopped the payment of the cheque in question on 12.08.2013, how he can issue the cheque after two months to the complainant.

-4Furthermore, the Court below has also found that all the cheques of the same series i.e. 125822 to 125838 have been presented before 10.10.2013.

From the record, especially the judgment passed by learned JMIC, Gurgaon, I find that the findings given by learned lower Court are correct, as per evidence and law. The evidence has been appreciated in right perspective. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings given by learned lower Court are perverse or against the law. Keeping in view the above discussion, I find that impugned judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Gurgaon, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court. No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.

July 27, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No