Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. An application u/s. 145(2) of the NI Act moved on behalf of the accused was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2021 and the accused was granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The complainant was duly cross-examined and discharged and vide separate statement of the complainant dated 19.02.2022, the post-summoning evidence was closed.

8. Statement of accused u/s. 281 r/w. Section 313 CrPC was Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan recorded on 09.09.2022 and all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. During statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has admitted that he has signed the cheque bearing no. 710103 and had written the amount in words and figures on the cheque in question and the date. He further stated that he had not written the name of the payee and the cheque has never been presented in his bank account and the date on the cheque has been altered from 15.04.2019 to 15.09.2019. He further stated that he has not signed cheque bearing no. 004384 and he has also not filled any particulars on the same. He has further stated that he has not received the legal notice and the address mentioned on the legal notice is his incorrect address. He further stated that he was not having his office at the first given address and he was also not residing at the second address mentioned in the legal notice. He has further stated that he has not given any cheque to the complainant and the cheque has been stolen by the son of the complainant, namely Sh. Nikunj from the dashboard of his car. He has further stated that he has received only Rs. 8,00,000/- from the complainant and he has never received any sum of money in cash from the complainant, particularly he has not received Rs. 12,00,000/- from the complainant in cash as stated by him in the complaint. He further stated that he has already repaid Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant before filing of the present complaint and he denied having legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant in regard to the cheque in question.

31. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further drawn the attention of this court towards the fact that the complainant has admitted that he has never verified if the accused lives at the addresses mentioned in the legal demand notice or not.

32. Ld. counsel for the accused has further drawn the attention of this court to the fact that the accused has categorically denied the receipt of the legal demand notice from the complainant in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC and has further stated that the addresses mentioned on the legal demand notice are his incorrect addresses and no proof has been furnished by the complainant for stating that the same are his correct addresses.

42. It is to be noted that the company master data pertaining to M/s Scienceinsteing Edutech Pvt. Ltd. has not been filed by the complainant so that it could have been identified that the company's registered address was the first address as mentioned in the legal demand notice. It is further to be noted that the complainant has not been filed an affidavit that the same is the last known correct address of the accused and the basis of knowledge of the same. It has been specifically stated by the accused that the said address is his incorrect address.

44. In view of the above-mentioned judgements, it is an established law that the legal presumption pertaining to the service of the legal demand notice is raised only if the same is sent at the correct address of the accused. If the legal demand notice is sent at the incorrect addresses of the accused then the service of legal demand notice is not deemed to be complete and the ingredients of offence u/s. 138 NI Act are not fulfilled.

45. In view of the above discussion, the accused has successfully been able to raise a probable defence that he had not received the legal demand notice and that the same was sent on his incorrect addresses and has also been able to prove his defence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.