Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.2. On the same date i.e. 10.07.2018, notice under Section 251 'Cr.P.C.', was given to Accused No. 3 Sandeep Saini also and he was asked whether he pleaded guilty or claimed trial. In reply to this, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his statement of defence recorded at that very time, he, inter­alia, averred that the cheque in question alongwith two other cheques were given to the complainant against payment of Rs. 4,75,000/­. Also according to him, out of the total amount, payment of Rs. 2,75,000/­ was already made to the complainant in cash. But there was no receipt in this regard. Furthermore, according to him he is liable to pay only an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the complainant. He denied receipt of the legal demand notice as his wife was hospitalized at that time. However, according to him, he was told about the legal demand notice by his neighbor. He admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but other details thereon were stated to be not in his handwriting.

13.5. It is a matter of record that on 10.07.2018 when Accused Nos.2 Mrs. Nisha Saini and her husband Mr. Sandeep Saini, Accused No.3 had appeared before Ld. Predecessor of this Court along with Sh. Ganesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate for all the three Accused persons and notice under Section 251 'Cr.P.C.', was given, admissions of facts made at that time are of great significance. These are as follows: ­ Accused No.3 Mr. Sandeep Saini­ i. That the cheque in question alongwith two other cheques were given to the complainant against payment of Rs. 4,75,000/­;

Smt.Nisha Saini, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she again admitted her signature on the Cheque in question. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that this Accused No.2 is also representing Accused No.1 Company in these Mr.Sandeep Saini, also admitted his signature on the Cheque in question when notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to him. The same admission was again made by when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

16.2. Significantly at the time of issuance of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. it was inter­alia stated by Accused No. 2 Smt. Nisha Saini that she did not receive the legal demand notice sent on behalf of the complainant, as she was hospitalized at that time. However, she was told about the said notice by her neighbor. When Accused No. 3 Sh.Sandeep Saini was given notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. he inter­alia stated that he did not receive the said legal demand notice as his wife was hospitalized at that time. However, he also got to know about the same from his neighbour. It is pertinent to mention here that when Accused No. 2 entered the witness box as DW­ 1 and was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the complainant, she deposed that "it is correct that I and accused No. 3 never made complaint against the postal department and courier company namely 'The Professional Courier' regarding giving of false report in respect of denial of taking the legal demand notice and delivery." As has already been held by the Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Hazi Vs. Palapetty Mohd. & Anr.(Supra) that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed." In the face of the aforesaid material it stands proved on record that the said legal demand notice dated 11.08.2017 Ex.CW1/4 stood served on the Accused No.1 company as well as Smt.Nisha Saini and Mr.Sandeep Saini, its directors i.e. Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3, on 14.08.2017.