TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any manner. The cheque had been manipulated and fabricated by the complainant. Said Davinder Kalra was unable to explain as to how the cheque, which was a bearer cheque, was presented and how it was crossed and made into an account payee cheque. The complainant even did not know the whereabouts of the employee of the petitioner Company who had handed over the cheque to him. It was submitted that the handwriting as well as ink used in the disputed cheque were admitted by the complainants witnesses, therefore, it was necessary to send the disputed cheque for obtaining FSL report to clear the doubts. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application noted that the signatures on the cheque had been admitted by the accused. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he complainant) for examination have been dismissed. Respondent-complainant filed a complaint dated 22.03.2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Ld. JMIC, Faridabad against the petitioners alleging that the goods were supplied to the petitioners and a sum of ₹ 22,51,874/- was due to them. In order to discharge its liability towards part payment, petitioner no. 3 issued a cheque bearing No.000633 dated 20.01.2017 for ₹ 11,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahendra Bank, New Delhi, which was dishonored vide memo dated 03.02.2017 with the remarks Funds Insufficient . On being summoned the petitioners put in appearance before the Ld. Magistrate. When the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, lest the petitioners should have any grievance, though mistaken, that they have not been granted fair opportunity to defend themselves against the charge, it would not be unjustified to grant the one more opportunity to lead their evidence in defence, though by putting them to some financial burden. In view of the above the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence, however subject to payment of ₹ 25,000/- as costs. The amount is ordered to be deposited with the Institute for Blind, Sector 26, Chandigarh within a period of two weeks from today. It is further clarified that the trial court shall grant the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writing as well as ink used in the disputed cheque were admitted by the complainants witnesses, therefore, it was necessary to send the disputed cheque for obtaining FSL report to clear the doubts. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application noted that the signatures on the cheque had been admitted by the accused. The petitioner while recording his defence statement under Section 263 (g) had specifically admitted the signatures on the cheque in question. The trial Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Gurmit Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (2) RCR (Crl.) 306 wherein it has been held that once an accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque, he could not escape his liability on the ground that the same had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner had been arrayed as witnesses by the complainant at the time of filing the complaint. The petitioners was aware of them since the very filing of the complaint but they chose to sleep over their right. There was thus no warrant for permitting the petitioner to bring additional evidence at the stage of final arguments. In this case vide order dated 8th January, 2019 the petitioners were granted last opportunity to produce their evidence in defence. Later vide order dated 18.5.2019 their application for keeping the proceedings in abeyance pending the decision in case titled as Nitin Sethi and Anr. Vs. M/s Devender Kalra and others which had been filed by them before the Court at New Delhi was dismissed by the Ld. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
