Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Manipulated document in Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Sukhdev Kumar Ojha on 16 October, 2012Matching Fragments
6. CW1 was duly crossexamined by the counsel for accused. During crossexamination, CW1 stated that loan transaction in question was not carried out in his presence and that he does not know the date, month & year as to when accused approached the complainant for obtaining loan. CW1 stated that a sum of Rs.2,49,900/ was disbursed to the accused on 30.06.2007 and that the same was disbursed by Centurion Bank who had already merged into HDFC bank on 20.05.2008 w.e.f. 23.05.2008. CW1 admitted that no document evincing merger of complainant bank with Centurion Bank is filed on record. CW1 further admitted that the power of attorney dated 31.03.2010 as referred at point A in Ex. CW1/A is not filed on record. CW1 stated that he does not remember the exact amount payable CC NO. 1465/12 Page no. 4 of 18 by the accused to complainant on 13.07.2009 i.e. the date of dispatch of legal notice. However, he voluntarily said that an approximate sum of Rs. 30,600/ was due upon the accused as on 01.05.2009. CW1 also stated that he does not know the date, month and year as to when the cheque in question was issued by the accused to complainant. CW1 denied the suggestion that the cheque in question was a security cheque given to the Centurion Bank which it did not return. CW1 further denied the suggestion that Ex. CW1/3 is a forged and manipulated document as the same had been generated from the complainant bank. CW1 admitted that the loan agreement in question and statement of account of accused is not filed on record by complainant.
9. The counsel for accused on the other hand argued that the cheque in question was given by the accused to Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. in blank signed form for security purposes at the time of disbursement of loan. It is argued that on the date mentioned on cheque in question, the liability of the accused was not to the extent of amount mentioned in the cheque. It is also argued that loan agreement in question and the statement of account of accused had not been filed by the complainant on record despite specific queries raised on behalf of the accused. It is contended that the complainant had failed to file on record any authentic documents to show the debt/ CC NO. 1465/12 Page no. 6 of 18 liability upon the accused towards the complainant. It is further contended that accused obtained loan from Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. and the complainant HDFC bank had failed to bring any documents to show that Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. has amalgamated with HDFC Bank. It is also argued that returning memo in question is a forged and manipulated document as the same does not bear any signature, stamp and seal of bank officials concerned.
iii) That the returning memo in question is not properly proved by the complainant and the same is a forged and manipulated document.
12. With respect to the first defence raised by the accused, it is the admitted fact that the loan in question was obtained by the accused from Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. It is averred by the complainant in its complaint that the said bank was amalgamated with HDFC bank pursuant to CC NO. 1465/12 Page no. 8 of 18 order dated 20.05.2008 of Reserve Bank of India w.e.f. 23.05.2008. It is though pertinent to note that the said order of amalgamation has never been placed on record by the complainant. During crossexamination of CW1, he admitted that the document evincing merger of complainant bank with Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. is not filed on record. Even after suggestion put by the counsel for accused that no such merger has taken place, the complainant did not care to bring the same on record through proper means. At the time of final arguments, it was argued by the counsel for complainant that the document i.e. order dated 20.05.2008 passed by RBI is a document which is judicially noticeable under Section 57 of Indian Evidence Act. As such the same need not be filed on record and need not be proved as per Section 56 of Indian Evidence Act. Counsel for complainant though failed to show as to how the notification/ order dated 20.05.2008 passed by RBI is judicially noticeable under Section 57 of Evidence Act as the same does not fall under any category enumerated therein. The complainant has thus failed to prove the factum of amalgamation of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. with HDFC Bank. The defence raised by the accused that the complainant in the present case i.e. HDFC Bank is not a holder in due course of cheque in question under Section 9 of Negotiable Instruments Act is therefore sustained.