Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He further denied that it was not the practice between the parties that the gold would be delivered at the working place of the accused. He denied that the cheque in question was intended for and delivered to the complainant on 18.06.2002 by his employee Sh. Veer Sigh Yadav or that on the said date, Sh. Veer Singh Yadav had received gold on behalf of accused no.1 He denied that Sh. Veer Singh Yadav made the complainant talked to him and he asked the complainant not to present the cheque. He denied that the cheque was not presented upto August 2002 because, they had requested the complainant not to present the cheque as their financial condition was not good. He remained outside India from 29.05.2002 to 29.06.2002. He did not remember who had received the call from the bank that the cheque in question had been presented for encashment. He was called by his manager accounts and informed that the bank had given a call with regard to the cheque in question. A letter with regard to the cheque in question was also issued to their banker. He had the copy of the same in his record. The copy of the same Ex. DW1/P1. He did not remember whether they had sent any fax to the bank or not. Before the noon of 21.08.2002, they had sent the letter Ex. DW1/P1 to the bank. It was dispatched through post as well as by hand. There was no receiving from the bank upon the letter which was sent by hand. The letter Ex. DW1/P1 bears his signatures. He denied that the letter Ex. DW1/D1 was an afterthought and that is way it was posted at 02.25 pm. He further deposed that it was not the case that on presentation of every cheque for encashment in their account, they would be informed by the bank. They were informed about the cheque in question because the funds in account were not provided for and the cheque was for a very high amount. He denied that the bank had informed the accused after the dishonour of the cheque and thereafter, the letter Ex. DW1/D1 was prepared as an afterthought. There was nothing on record to show that letter Ex.CW1/D1 was faxed to the complainant. He denied that Ex. CW1/D1 was replied vide letter dated 28.08.2002. He further denied that Ex. CW1/D1 was neither antedated nor fabricated. He did not write any letter to the complainant saying that letter Ex. CW1/D1 or Ex. CW1/D2 were antedated. He could not produce the envelope in which Ex. CW1/D1 and Ex. CW1/D2 were delivered. He could not produce any documentary evidence apart from his oral testimony that the letter Ex. CW1/D1 and Ex. CW1/D2 were antedated. He denied that the bill Ex. CW1/A3 was not a forged or fabricated document or that the accused company had received gold against the same. He denied that the entire receipt book containing document Ex. DW1/3 was not a forged or fabricated document or that the accused company had received gold against the same. He denied that the entire receipt book containing document Ex. DW1/3 was fabricated and manipulated. He denied that there was no procedure followed by the accused whereby whenever the accused received gold from any party, a voucher would be issued for the same. However, he admitted that Ex. DW1/3 was an internal document of the accused. Vouchers were issued for all the metals received by the accused company. The entires of the goods delivered by the complainant to the accused on 09.03.2002 and 26.03.2002 were not reflected in the voucher book Ex. DW1/3 because, they pertained to the previous financial years.

On court question that how could he explain the vouchers in Ex. DW1/3 which were for January 2002, the same being of the same financial years as that of 09.03.2002 and 26.03.2002?, the DW1 replied that he did not know whether that transaction pertain to previous financial year and he did not bring it because he did not expect that question.

He further deposed that ST­I forms filed by him on last date of hearing were issued from Delhi. All the gold from M/s Shri Krishna Traders was received at Gurgaon. They never took any receipt of the vouchers such as Ex. DW1/3. Voluntarily deposed that these vouchers were given in exchange of goods. He denied that the register Ex. DW1/4 was a manipulated and fabricated document. He denied that the document pertaining to Sales Tax were manipulated documents. He denied that the document Ex. DW1/8 was a fabricated and manipulated document. His stock registers, voucher books and the ledgers did not bear the signatures of the auditor at any place. Voluntarily deposed that it was not required. He denied that Sh. Veer Singh Yadav was an employee of a company in which any of the directors was a shareholder. He denied that all the documents filed on record and which pertained to the record of employees were manipulated documents. He denied that Sh. C.L. Mehra was a person who actively involved in responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused no.1. He denied that accused no.1 was liable to pay Rs. 17 lacs to the complainant and that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of that liability. He denied that the cheque in question has not been misused in connivance with M/s Shri Krishna Traders. He denied that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter accused has closed his defence evidence.