DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar in complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent Krishan Kumar obtained a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the applicant-Society by executing an agreement and an undertaking from his employer to recover and deduct the amount in monthly instalments along with interest to be calculated at half yearly rests. Subsequently, the respondent did not adhere to repayment of the instalments of the Society and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The cheque issued by the respondent was presented for encashment and same got dishonoured. A complaint was filed by the complainant-Society and vide judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, the same was dismissed and the respondent was acquitted of the charge. The present Crl. Misc. No.336-MA of 2010 2 application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C has been filed for grant of leave to file appeal on the ground that the respondent was acquitted of the charge by erroneous finding and without proper appreciation of evidence. The applicant-Society served a legal notice before filing of the complaint but the respondent choose not to file any reply within the prescribed period and simply denied the allegations as per his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C taken during trial.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant also submits that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondent submitted some cheques and those cheques could have been used and the cheques were used by the applicant as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been complied with and still, the respondent has been acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the cheques, in dispute, were given to the applicant-Society as a security and the signatures on the cheques were proved but the handwriting upon the cheques was not proved. A categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court and case against the respondent could not be proved. Hence, the complaint had rightly been dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court, as well as, other documents on file.;