9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17. 3. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, this revision has been filed. The Trial Court record was called. The same has been perused. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. According to the complainant-Devender Bhardwaj (now respondent), the two accused, namely, Alok Shandiliya and Shobha Shandiliya (petitioners herein) are running a security service in the name and style of PLN9 Security Services Pvt. Limited. Complainant was an employee with the accused. It was alleged that accused had issued cheques No. 072759 for an amount of Rs. 27,990/-and 072760 of an amount of Rs. 10,696/-, both dated 20.01.2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Sector 54, Gurugram, towards the wages, to the complainant. However, on presentation, both the cheques were returned as unpaid with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer", vide bank memo dated 25.01.2014. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.01.2014 through registered post asking the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was alleged that neither this notice was received back as undelivered nor responded to and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 6 dated 14.01.2015 had been registered against the complainant at Police Station Sector 17/18, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drawn attention towards the cross-examination of CW1-complainant Devender Bhardwaj, wherein he admitted the FIR against him and that he had been called in inquiry. Accused denied to have served Skylark Securities Pvt. Ltd., but admitted that Ex.D1 was issued by the said company. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn attention towards testimony of DW1 Surender Yadav, who is the H.R. (Head) of Skylark Securities Pvt. Ltd. and who testified that the complainant had joined their company as Operational Manager from November, 2013 and who also proved the salary slips Ex.D-3 to D-5. It is contended that said defence had been taken by the accused at the very first opportunity, when they replied to the legal notice by sending Ex.P-6. Pointed attention is drawn towards to the fact that neither in the complaint nor in his testimony, complainant referred about the reply dated 15.02.2014 (Ex.P6) to the legal notice, which was sent by the accused, though complainant himself placed the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is pertinent to mention here that you were given responsibility of managing clients in Delhi NCR and as part of your responsibility you have to disburse wages at site each month and manage day to day affairs of these sites. 2. That of period of August 213 to Jan 2014, you were given cash for disbursement of wages to staff on field, out of which you have not accounted for nor returned an amount of 51886/-till date to my clients, along with you were also an amount of Rs. 22611/-, Twenty-two thousand six hundred and eleven for purchase of shoes for the guards, which had neither been accounted for nor the shoes distributed to guards. 3. That 210 sets of uniforms with a total cost of approximately Rs. Two lacs had been taken by you. These are neither returned or accounted for by you till date. 4. That my clients have received written complaints from 6 employees as of now against you, regarding non receiving of their monthly wages and that you have misappropriated the amount of their salary which was given to you by my client and that you have forged the signatures on salary sheet and did not return the amount of guards salary to my clients nor received by them. 5. That it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Skylark Securities Pvt. Ltd. He also denied to have ever received any payment in 2013 from Skylark Securities Pvt. Ltd. 20. The entire testimony of the complainant to the above effect is falsified by the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the accused-petitioners. DW1-Surender Yadav is the Human Resources (Head) for Skylark Securities Pvt. Ltd., who not only proved the letter of intent (Ex.D1) issued by his company to the complainant Devender Bhardwaj, but further testified that said Devender Bhardwaj had joined his company in November, 2013 itself. He also proved on record the salary slips Ex.D3 to D5. During cross-examination, DW1 disclosed that complainant had continuously done job in his company ever since 1st November, 2013 and during that time, he was not serving in any other company. DW2 ASI Jaipal was the Investigating Officer of the FIR No. 6 dated 14.01.2013 (Ex.D2) registered against the complainant and testified that as per the investigation conducted by him, complainant had forged the receipts of salary of certain guards regarding disbursement of the salary and had embezzled the amount. He proved on record the statement of one of such guard as Mark D2. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
