Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. Another defence raised by accused is that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of existence debt or liability rather is a stolen cheque and the said cheque was destroyed by Bank in 2015. In the support of his defence accused examined a witness DW1, Shri Swapnil. Perusal of examination and cross examination of DW1 reveals that there is no proper written authorization letter for the concerned witness from the bank official to testify. DW1 has stated in his cross examination that he has no knowledge of the fact whether any copy of police complaint was filed when bank was intimated about cheque being stolen. He further stated that he does not remember whether the information of cheque being stolen was given in writing. He also stated that the said cheque was destroyed after receiving the information about cheque being stolen. In the support of this statement, he has also produced on record a certificate on behalf of ICICl Bank, Ex.DW1/l, showing that the cheque in question has been destroyed in the book of account of the bank.

18. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the cheque in question was a stolen cheque. However, during defence evidence, the appellant had not proved on record his complaint or missing report before the police or other authorities regarding theft of the cheque. Appellant had examined Dy. Manager, ICICI Bank as DW1 who placed on record certificate Ex. DW1I1 stating that the cheque in question was destroyed on 17.01.2015. DW1 had not placed on record any document that on whose application or upon which material the said cheque was destroyed. During cross examination, DW1 has even failed to prove his authorisation to appear before the Court to, appear as a witness on behalf of ICICI Bank. He admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say whether the account holder had submitted any copy of police complaint/DDR/FIR/NCR at the time of intimation to the bank that the cheque had been stolen. He further admitted that in ordinary course of business, the cheque is destroyed only if the customer gives request for the same in writing. Appellant/accused had not taken any step to prove on record his any such intimation to the bank in writing through any evidence.

11. On the plea of forged signatures and the "destroyed cheque", the Petitioner examined the Deputy Manager, ICICI Bank, as DW-1 and produced a certificate stating that the cheque was destroyed on 17 th January, 2015. DW-1, however, produced no record showing on whose request the cheque was destroyed, no written request from the Petitioner, and no This is a digitally signed order.