Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Post summoning Complainant Evidence. The complainant in his post summoning evidence examined Sh. Vijay Verma, He was not cross examined by the accused despite several opportunity granted after giving opportunity as 'Nil' and as such, complainant evidence was closed vide order dt. 18.7.2019 by new Authorized Representative of the complainant namely Sh. Ashok Dogra matter was listed for statement of accused.

8. Thereafter, Statement of accused no.2 for himself and on behalf of accused no. 1 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting all incriminating evidence led by the complainant. Accused no.2 denied Cc No. 4992429/16 M/S Surya Cargo Vs M/S K.S Logistics 5/15 the same and reiterated the averments as stated in notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C stating that he used to keep blank signed cheques in his office. He sold his premises to his brother and from there the blank signed cheques might have been taken by the complainant. He has filed the complaint in this regard in PS Moti Nagar. The accused opted to lead defence evidence.

9. In his defence, he examined himself as defence witness No.1 and reiterated the version as stated in the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In addition to his averments, he further stated that has made the payment of more than Rs. 50 Lacs to get the shipment release. He used to carry out his business from his office situated in Karol Bagh where cheque book and other papers were kept and used to keep signed cheques in his premises. The cheque book got misplaced of which the cheques in question forms the part. He has also filed a complaint regarding misplacing his cheque book. He do not know how the cheque in question came into possession of the complainant. He has not taken any amount from the complainant. He has no debt against the complainant.

" ... The onus even in such cases upon the accused is nto as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, Cc No. 4992429/16 M/S Surya Cargo Vs M/S K.S Logistics 9/15 even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal"

15. The accused has categorically admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C , as well as in notice u/s 251 cr.p.c that the cheque in question was belongs to his bank and admitted his liability of Rs.17,35,395/­. The accused also admitted that he had received legal notice and duly replied but no reply is place on record. He further stated in his statement as DW1 that he has paid more than 50 lakhs to get the shipment released. He did not filed any copy of police report for mising of cheuqe book or reply to the legal notice on record.

Cc No. 4992429/16 M/S Surya Cargo Vs M/S K.S Logistics 12/15

21. It stand established on record in the form of evidence of the complainant, documents exhibited in evidence, admission of signature on cheque etc of the accused during accusations explained to him u/s 251 cr.pc & statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused was having business terms with the complainant and the cheque in question belongs to him. The accused has also admitted about receiving of legal demand notice and replied the same though , he has not filed copy of reply on record nor he produced any record to show that he has paid all the amount to the complainant as contended by him. The accused also did not produce any statement of account maintained by him during the course of business with the complainant. The accused has also admitted his liability in reply to notice u/s 251 cr.p.c. The accused has also nt produced any copy of complaint lodged in P S to show the cheque in questions were misused or were in fact they were missing nor he examined any other person in defence to whom he had given payment with regard to penalty on behalf of complainant nor produced receipt, as claimed, issued to him by BMC on record. The accused also admitted his signature on the cheques in question. hence, the foremost ingredients of offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. Rather the accused admitted his liability of Rs.17,35,395/- in notice u/s 251 cr.p.c and made contradicting stand regarding issuing cheque in question in favour of complainant. It is contended by the complainant that in cross examination of accused as DW1, Cc No. 4992429/16 M/S Surya Cargo Vs M/S K.S Logistics 13/15 the accused admitted that he used to book the consignment with the complainant company and had availed the services of complainant company. Further, accused admitted that the payment reflecting in Ex. CW1/2 made under the heading of "credit" were made by theaccused against the bills raised by the complainant under the heading of "debit". Hence, the accused had admitted the statement of account Ex CW1/2. The accused had admitted that he had not filed on record any statement of account maintained by him during the course of business with the complainant. Further, accussed has also admitted that he had not filed any document on recdord to show ithat he had paid any amount to the complainant company in cash or that he had paid the penalities to the customers. The accused has also admitted that he ahs not filed any receipt on recodrd to show that he had paid the penalties to the MBC and the fact that he has not filed any document to show that he had demanded N form from the complainant company. He also admitted that he has not filed on record the copy of police complaint regarding missing of the cheques in question. On the other hand, there is no consistent trustworthy occular evidence either oral or documentary filed by the accused to favour him.