Dilbagh Kaur Chandok v. State

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22"'' February 2017, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC nos. 26476/16, 27172/16,26478/16 the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petitions.

2. Facts as per the complaint filed by the petitioners are that the petitioners had given a total sum ofRs.17,00,000/- in cash in August 1999 for a period ofone year to the respondent as an investmentin the business of chit funds run by her. Later on,when the petitioners demanded their money back respondent No.2 in discharge ofher liability issued the following five cheques to the petitioners: i. Cheque bearing number 480697 and dated 2"^^ January 2001 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank,KarolBagh. a. Cheque bearing number 480698 and dated 2"^ January 2001 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Indian Hi. Cheque bearing number 480699 and dated 2"'' January CRL.L.P.Nos.231/2017,232/2017&233/2017 Page2of[5] 2019:DHC:7899 2001 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Indian iv. Cheque bearing number 480700 and dated 2" January 2001 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Indian

V. Cheque bearing number 498219 and dated 2" January

3. When the cheques were presented for encashment, cheques(i)to(iv) were returned unpaid with remarks "insujficientfunds"and cheque(v)was th returned unpaid with the remark "refer to drawer" vide memos dated 6 February 2001. Legal notice was sent to the respondent, however, despite notice, the respondent failed to make the payment within the stipulated period oftime,hence,the instant complaints were filed.

4. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against respondent NO. 2to which she pleaded notguilty and claimed trial.

5. Daljeet Singh Chandok examined himself as CW-1 and relied upon original cheques, power of attorney, cheque return memos, legal notice, postal receipt,registered AD Card and the complaints.

6. Statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she claimed that her blank signed cheque book was lying in the house of Daljeet Singh Chandok who is the husband of her real sister who misappropriated the same.

7. The respondent examined Jagish Salwan and Ashok Sarda,Manager's of Citi Bank as DW-1 and DW-2 who proved the bank statements of Harpreet Chandok and Dilbagh Kaur Chandok. Gopal Kumar, Assistant Manager,Indian Overseas Bank was examined as DW-3. CRL.L.P.Nos.231/2017,232/2017&233/2017 Page3of[5]

8. As per the evidence on record the petitioners have failed to make a specific assertion as to the knowledge ofthe power ofattorney holder about the said transaction explicitly in the present complaint. It was the claim of the petitioners thatthe income wasfrom mutualfunds however the power of attorney holder ofthe petitioners did not explain as to what was the actual income ofthe petitioners atthe relevanttime nor has he been able to explain how the petitioners got the said income converted into cash. The petitioner has contended that the money was handed over to the respondent in 12-14 instalments however the power of attorney holder has nowhere stated as to any payment in instalments in his complaint or his cross-examination. The source ofthe cash has not been adequately explained by the petitioner.

9. The Supreme Court in the decision reported as(2004)12 SCO 83 G. PankajakshiAmma v. Mathai Mathew observed:

10. There is any reason also why the impugned judgment cannot be upheld. According to the 1st respondent these transactions were to be unaccounted transactions. According to the 1st respondent, all these amounts are paid in cash. If these are unaccounted transactions then they are illegal transactions. No court can come to the aid ofthe party in an illegal transaction. It is settled law that in such cases the loss must be allowed to lie where itfalls. In this case as these are unaccounted transactions, the Court could not have lent its hands and passed a decree. For these reasons also the suit was required to be dismissed.

10. The transaction between the parties was of an unaccounted cash transaction therefore making it difficult to trace the loan amount. The alleged liability to repay an unaccounted cash amount admittedly not disclosed in the Income Tax Return cannot be a legally enforceable liability.

11. Findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, based on the facts CRL.L.P.Nos.231/2017,232/2017& 233/2017 Page 4 of[5] noted above cannot be said to be perverse waiTanting interference of this Court.

12. Leave to appeal petitions are dismissed.

13. TCR be returned.