Ramdia vs Krishan Kumar Thareja and Another

K.C. Puri, J.—Vide this order, I intend to dispose of four appeal, bearing CRM Nos. 1171 MA of 2010, 1172 MA of 2010, 1173 MA of 2010 and 1174 MA of 2010, preferred by Ramdia against the four judgments dated 4.10.2010 passed by Sh. A.K. Shori, Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which the accused Krishan Kumar Thareja, has been acquitted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'').

The facts are being taken from CRM No. 1171 MA of 2010.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ramdia - complainant/Appellant filed complaint u/s 138 of the Act against Krishan Kumar Thareja with the allegation that Krishan Kumar Thareja issued a cheque No. 669066 dated 15.1.2007 amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-drawn upon State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, in the name of the complainant against the discharge of existing liability. The said cheque was presented before the banker for collection, which was received with the memo dated 18.1.2007 as dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The complainant served a registered notice dated 9.2.2007 upon the accused as required u/s 138 of the Act. However, the accused did not pay the amount of the cheque in question. Hence the complaint.

Krishan Kumar Thareja - accused/Respondent was summoned and notice was issued to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant examined CW-1 Dalbir Singh, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, CW-2 P.B. Grover, Special Assistant, State Bank of India. He also examined himself as CW-3 and examined Nirmal Singh, Clerk to Sh. Amrit Lal, Advocate as CW-4.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure And all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused guilty u/s 138 of the Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In addition, the complainant was directed to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs.

The other three cases were of similar nature in respect of dishonour of cheques and the trial Court recorded conviction in all the cases.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and judgments in three separate cases, the accused filed the appeals. The said appeals were accepted vide judgments dated 4.10.2010 passed by Sh. A.K. Shori, Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in the present case as well as in all the three cases.

Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgments of acquittal dated 4.10.2010, the complainant-Appellant has preferred the present appeals. Alongwith the appeal, an application u/s 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure for granting leave to appeal has also been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Ist Appellate Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that Appellant has failed to prove the legal liability. It is submitted that it is admitted case of the parties that accused issued 4 cheques, which are in dispute, in favour of the complainant-Appellant, in discharge of his legal liability of payment of earnest money in respect of sale of property. In fact an amount of Rs. 1 lac was paid in cash, whereas another sum of Rs. 19,50,000/-was paid to the Appellant through different cheques, regarding which more complaints have been filed. There was a legal liability in respect of the cheques in question and as such the Ist Appellate Court has wrongly accepted the appeal of the Respondent.

I have carefully considered the submission made by the counsel for the Appellant and have also gone through the files of all the cases.

The argument advanced by counsel for the Appellant looks attractive, but is without any legal force. It is admitted case of the parties that 4 cheques were in lieu of earnest money in respect of sale of the property of the complainant to the accused-Respondent.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Appellant was fair enough to concede that no sale deed in compliance to the agreement of sale has been executed by the Appellant in favour of the accused-Respondent. Since the Appellant has himself resiled from the execution of the sale deed regarding which the agreement was executed and as such the learned Ist Appellate Court has rightly held that accused has no legal liability.

A question was asked to the counsel for the Appellant, whether the Appellant is ready to executed the sale deed in compliance to the agreement. But counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant is not ready to execute the sale deed in compliance to the agreement. The liability of the accused-Respondent was in respect of purchase of the land as earnest money. Since the Appellant has himself resiled from the execution of the sale deed in compliance to the agreement, and as such, I have no hesitation in holding that the accused has no legal liability and as such the order of acquittal, passed by the Ist Appellate Court, does not call for any interference.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal in all the four cases stands declined and all the four appeals also stand dismissed.