Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banarsi Dass vs Darshan Singh on 1 May, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No.A-1911-MA of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: May 01, 2019
Banarsi Dass …Applicant
Versus
Darshan Singh …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
In defence, accused examined DW-1 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print Expert, DW-2 Manish Kumar, Clerk, Bank of India, Branch Faridkot, DW-3 Shalinder Singh, Auction Recorder, Market Committee Faridkot, DW-4 Amandeep Arora, Field Officer, Canara Bank, Branch Office, Faridkot, DW-5 Ravinder Kumar Singla, Auction Recorder, Market Committee, Sadiq, DW-6 Kuldeep Singh and DW-7 Parjinder Singh.
It is settled law that presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence. In the present case, the accused has raised defence which is duly supported and corroborated by the defence evidence as well as case of the complainant. Firstly, DW-1 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print Expert, has compared the handwriting of the body of the cheque and opined that it is not in the hands of the accused, which supports the defence version as it was a blank cheque which has been misused.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned JMIC, Faridkot, 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.