2008 (5) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion No.29090-M of 2001 and Criminal Misc. Petition No.36987-M of 2001. As similar questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellant, are as follows:- Jagdish Chand - respondent herein and his wife Smt. Ramesh Rani are the proprietors of M/s Mehra Export Corporation and M/s Mehra International, Katra Hari Singh, Amritsar. The firms deal in saffron, herbs and other like goods. M/s Sudhir Kumar Bhalla and Brothers, 25, Green Park, Ludhiana, of which Sudhir Kumar Bhalla - appellant herein is one of the partners, has been purchasing various goods from the firms of Jagdish Chand and Ramesh Rani. The sale price was being paid in cash and at times, through cheques. 3. In the month of May, 1997, the appellant on behalf of his firm issued six cheques Nos. 442344, 442345, 442346, 442347, 442348 and 442349 dated 01.05.1997, 03.05.1997 and 05.05.1997 in favour of M/s Mehra Export Corporation and M/s Mehra International. Out of those six cheques, two cheques were in the sums of Rs. 30,000/- each and four cheques were in the sums of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al of the appellant by the trial court, the respondent filed five criminal appeals, two as an attorney of his wife and three on his behalf, in the High Court. 6. In April 1998, the appellant approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. by way of two separate applications alleging fraud, cheating, tampering of the cheques by the respondent and his wife and prayed that the police be directed to register criminal cases against them. On the directions of the learned Magistrate, FIR No.93 of 1998 was registered against the respondent under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC, whereas second FIR No.94 of 1998 was lodged against Jagdish Chand and Smt. Ramesh Rani under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. After investigation, the police filed challans in both the cases in the court. The trial court charge sheeted the respondent and his wife vide two separate orders dated 15.01.2000. They filed two revision petitions against the orders of framing charges against them, which were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide separate orders dated 04.06.2001.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igh Court. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The arguments put forward by Mr. Patwalia deserve to be accepted. 11. We have gone through the record of the trial Magistrate placed before us. In support of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, the trial Magistrate examined the respondent on 27.04.1999. On 05.05.2000, the respondent in his cross-examination admitted as under:- "I have brought the account books for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97. I have seen the ledger for the year 1995-96 where there is a payment of rupees one lac dated 26.10.1995 having been made by the accused to me but the remaining amounts are for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- each and at one time it was for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Once a payment of Rs. 25,000/- was also made in the said year. This ledger relates to the firm M/s Mehra Exports. The payments of Rs. 35,000/- each have been made either through cheques or through drafts. I have also seen the ledger book of M/s Mehra International for the year 1995-96. Except Rs. 10,000/- all the payments made in this account are either through draft or through cheque. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o in above mentioned cheque has not been written in the continuous process by the same person with the same pen and ink, but it has been subsequently changed into by adding figure zero in the original amount Rs. 30,000/- and it is free hand forgery. The reasons have already been given in my report dated 21.5.2001. It consists of 6 pages and it is Ex.DW3/1. It has been prepared by me signed by me and is correct. One photograph chart bearing the photograph cheque No. 442345 dt. 5.5.97 is Ex.DW3/2, one negative is Ex.DW/3." 16. As noticed above, the Judicial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 06.02.2002 acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 138 of the Act and consequently dismissed the complaint of the respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, recorded the conviction of the appellant vide order dated 25.01.2007 for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, which reads as under:- "Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for Sudhir Kumar Bhalla that the figures of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- mentioned in the cheques were interpolated by adding 'zero' to make the same Rs. 3,00,000/....