- (1.) CRM No.33011 of 2013 Allowed as prayed. Annexure P-1 is taken on record subject to just exceptions. CRM No. A-254-MA of 2013 1. The present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad whereby the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that Veerpal claiming himself to be proprietor of the petitioner firm filed a complaint on the allegations that accused M/s Davinder and Associates, a proprietorship firm of D.S.Rawat entered into an agreement for levelling the grounds at their work site and for that purpose accused hired a tractor from the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the accused had to incur charges of maintenance and damage to the tractor. While working on the site at village Tunav, Pauri Garhwal, the tractor met with an accident and got totally damaged. To indemnify loss caused to the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 000092 dated 20.3.2009 for L 3,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, NAC Mani Majra, Chandigarh. The cheque on its presentation to the bank for encashment got dishonoured vide Memo dated 27.5.2009 on the ground "payment stopped by drawer". The accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice.
(3.) The trial Court recorded evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing counsel for the parties, while relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishna Janardhan Bhatt v. Dattarraya G. Hegde, 2008 AIR(SC) 1325, came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and as a result, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence charged against him.;