Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Ext.D1 shows that the Postman had endorsed that the address was incomplete and hence, returned. There is a further endorsement by another Postman that door was locked, intimation was given and thereafter, it was returned. DW3, Postman of that concerned post office identified the Postman who had made the  endorsement. There is slightly divergent version as to whether the notice was returned on the ground of incomplete address or whether it was unclaimed after intimation. However, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue whether it was attempted to be served on the de facto complainant has not much relevance. The only relevance of Ext.D1 coupled with Ext.D3 is that while the complainant claims that Ext.P1 cheque was handed over in June 2007, three months prior to that, the accused had shot a registered letter mentioning the same cheque number and disclosing the defence now set up. It shows that the registered letter was issued by the accused in March 2007, which undoubtedly show that the de facto complainant was in possession of the cheque in March 2007. Evidently, if the case set up by the de facto complainant that Ext.P1 cheque was issued to him in June 2007 is believed, it is unimaginable as to how three months prior to that, when the parties had not even thought of entering into the alleged loan transaction, the accused could have visualized that blank cheques would be handed over to the de facto complainant. This cuts at the very root of the case of the complainant that he received a cheque of Rs.1,65,000/- in June 2007, and it completely falsifies the case set up by the complainant. Another fact to be  noticed is that even according to the complainant, he had availed a loan from accused, few months prior to this transaction.