Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 368 - DELHI HIGH COURTGuilty for committing offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that:- There is controversy as to the ‘date’ when it was so executed; the word “Liya or Diya” mentioned in it are also disputed. The complainant did not examine any attesting witness to corroborate his version. Admittedly, the revenue stamp was affixed on the receipt subsequently; there are certain alterations in receipt (Ex.CW-1/3). It further records that the cheques in question were given to the complainant as security (“Bator Amanat Diye”). The complainant alleged that these words were incorporated subsequently by DW-2 (Ramesh Chandra) in connivance of the respondent. This receipt records that ornaments worth ₹ 2.30 lacs and ₹ 1.70 lac were given. It is, however, unclear whether the gold ornaments were given by the complainant to the respondent or vice versa. In the complaint, the complainant did not disclose if ornaments worth ₹ 2.30 lacs and ₹ 1.70 lacs were given by him to the respondent. The respondent examined DW-2 (Ramesh Chandra) and DW-3 (Ashok Kumar) attesting witnesses to the receipt (Ex.CW-1/3). They have supported the respondent’s version. It was specifically denied that the words in Ex.CW-1/3 were manipulated or fraudulently inserted. At no stage, the complainant lodged any complaint for fabrication of the receipt (Ex.CWCrl. 1/3) though it continued to be in his possession. Contents of the receipt can’t be permitted to be denied under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is amply clear from the evidence referred above that at the time of issuance of the cheques there was no outstanding liability on the respondent’s part. The complainant has not established if any jewellery purportedly pledged by the respondent with him was ever returned to him. The appellant cannot be permitted to enjoy the alleged pledged jewellery as well as to ask for cheque amount given as security / entrustment. In the light of above discussion, impugned judgment suffers from no illegality.
|