9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efused' and not paid the cheque amount and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The accused appeared and contested the matter denying the case of the complainant. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, statement of the accused required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the document as Ex.D1 and during the course of cross- examination of D.W.1, learned counsel for the complainant confronted a document and got marked the same as Ex.P18. 4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 and the documents Exs.P1 to P18 and Ex.D1 and also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that issuance of cheques is not in dispute and also drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and comes to the conclusion that the accused-respondent has not rebutted the case of the complainant and also taken note of the documents Exs.P11 to P17-cash/credit bills along with copy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents Exs.P11 to P17. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also did not appreciate the evidence on record and has blindly accepted the reasoning given by the Trial Court, inspite of contentions urged with regard to improper service of notice and not proving the liability. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 in the cross-examination and contend that even though bills are produced subsequently after cross- examination of P.W.1, the same do not substantiate the claim of the complainant. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- complainant would vehemently contend that issuance of cheques i.e., one cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and two cheques for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is not disputed and under what circumstances, those three cheques are given is not explained by the petitioner herein. The respondent- complainant also produced the bills Exs.P11 to P17. When the very transaction was denied by the petitioner herein, in his defence evidence also, he has not stated anything as to under what circumstances, he gave thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter and account. But he has not produced any document for having purchased the materials to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/. But, he claims that he can produce the bills. No doubt, suggestion was made that at no point of time, materials were purchased, the same was denied. P.W.1 was also re-examined before the Court and he produced the bills Ex.P11 to P17 i.e., in total 7 in number and also produced Xerox copy of VAT and CST. This witness was further cross-examined and in the further cross-examination, he admits that he has not mentioned with regard to Exs.P11 to P17 in the legal notice and also admits that, in the said bills, there is no signature of the petitioner herein and there was no difficulty for him to get his signature. Specific suggestion was made that those bills are created and the same was denied. 12. On the other hand, the petitioner herein is also examined before the Trial Court. To prove his evidence, he has produced Election ID card which is marked as Ex.D1 and he claims that he is not residing in the address for which the notice was issued. The postal department has also not given any intimation for having issued the notice and he denies the fact that he has not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ex.P1 is issued under the name of B.K. Group as a Proprietor of the company has not been denied and when the notice was given to B.K. Group Consultant, the very contention that no proper service of notice cannot be accepted. 16. The other contention that the complainant has not proved the very transaction also cannot be accepted since, it is a specific evidence of the complainant that he is a regular customer and the same was not denied. No doubt, in the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that no such transaction has taken place, but in the chief evidence, the petitioner has remained silent, except stating that he has not issued those cheques and even not stated anything about what made him to issue those three cheques and about the bills Exs.P11 to P17. These are the factors which are taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the case of the complainant in Para Nos.8 and 9 and the Trial Court considered the material on record and reasoning is also given in Para No.10 with regard to drawing presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. If no transaction has taken place, what made the petitioner to issue the cheques in favour of the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
