TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHO. There has been a clear lapse of 7 months in filing the complaint by the petitioner. The petitioner deposed that "I came to know that my cheques having got stolen only after receiving the summons from this Hon'ble Court." If the same is assumed to be true, the petitioner even then did not take any prompt action despite being aware of the fact that a complaint has been lodged against him by misusing his stolen cheques. The petitioner approached the police authorities only after seven months. Therefore from the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it is quite apparent that the said complaint was a clear afterthought on the part of the petitioner to create a fictious defence in his favour. Therefore for the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the account of one Raj Kalan/a relative of the complainant and the same was encashed by the petitioner from the account of one Inder Singh. The complainant further stated that in order to discharge his personal liability, the petitioner issued a Cheque bearing No.394512 dated 05.07.2012 for a sum of ₹ 2 Lakhs, which when presented for encashment on 05.07.2012 was returned unpaid for the reasons Account Blocked . Thereafter a legal demand notice dated 30.07.2012 was served upon the petitioner. However even despite the said notice, the petitioner did not make any payment to the complainant and hence the present complaint was lodged. 3. A notice dated 14.01.2013, under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is bad in law and is based on conjectures and surmises; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witness; that in fact the signed cheques were not issued regarding discharge of any legal liability but were rather stolen by the complainant from the petitioner's house where the complainant visited regularly; that regarding the stolen cheque, a complaint had been lodged by the petitioner; that the petitioner had not received the legal de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and sometime, I picked my wife from the house Seema The petitioner/Bhoop Singh did not dispute the said fact during his cross-examination. Further in his statement under section 315 Cr.P.C on Oath he stated as under:- I know the complainant Sh. Amit Kumar as he was a friend of my daughter namely Seema. He used to visit my residence while I used to be away. Hence from the above it is clear that there were close family relations between the petitioner and the complainant and the same can be safely presumed to be the underlying reason why the complainant would have advanced a personal loan of ₹ 2 Lakhs to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has stated in his defence that the two cheques as alleged to have been issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eepti/daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not disputed the address mentioned on Ex CW-1/E and the same address also appears on the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. Therefore the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has rightly held that the presumption, as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that the legal notice was duly received by the petitioner in the ordinary course of postal business, lies in favour of the complainant. Moreover the petitioner has not led any evidence before the Trial Court to prove the contrary. 11. The petitioner has also urged in support of his defence that in respect of the stolen cheque, the petitioner had also lodged a complaint. Perusal of the record reveals that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
