Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: signed blank papers in Vide This Judgment I Shall Dispose Of The ... vs Unknown on 22 June, 2015Matching Fragments
7. Accused examined three witnesses including himself as DW1 in his defence evidence. He stated in his examination in chief that he met the complainant for the first time in February, 2011 as he was working as Manager in Muthoot Finance. The complainant offered him for better loan options from the banks on lower rate of interest. For arranging loans from different banks, the complainant asked him to complete certain documentary requirements and to give few blank signed papers, blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheques and photocopies of ID proof. The complainant assured him to use blank signed cheques for the commission purpose only against the loan. The complainant also took cash from him for a number of times in the name of expenditure incurred in arranging loan and till July, 2011, he gave amount of Rs. 3,25,000/ to the complainant for arranging loans from different banks. When the complainant failed to arrange loan for him, he requested for refund of his amount. The complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/ in the month of August, 2011. The complainant told him that due to anxiety of accused he is returning Rs. 3,00,000/ out of Rs. 3,25,000/ and still he would try for arranging loans for him. The complainant never arranged any loan for him and he refused to return his blank signed documents and cheques. Complainant many times gave cheques to him for the purpose of withdrawal of money for him and he used to do the same for the complainant due to good relations. During crossexamination, he accepted his signatures on Ex. CW1/1 at point A, however, he is stated that the same were taken by the complainant on the blank papers. He accepted his signatures on the cheque in question i.e. Ex. CW1/3 and stated that cheque in question was given to the complainant as blank signed cheque for the commission for purpose of arranging loan for him. He accepted that Ex. CW2/2 was given to him by the complainant and stated that complainant made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ by way of cheque for returning of amount taken by him on different dates in the name of commission. The balance amount of Rs. 25,000/ was not paid by the complainant and complainant stated that the same has been adjusted as he was making efforts for arranging loan for him. He voluntarily stated that at the time of handing over cheque bearing no. 715964 of Rs. 3,00,000/, the mutual document containing payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ was destroyed in presence of complainant. During evidence, accused placed documents Ex. DW1/1(colly) & Ex. DW1/2(colly) on record which are the certified copies of the complaint filed by nephew of the complainant and his friend against the accused.
● That the accused is an educated person and no question arises that he gave blank cheques and blank signed stamp papers to the complainant. ● That all the cheques in question were issued by him for consideration.
10. Per contra, following written submissions were made on behalf of the accused: ● That as per the complainant, there was commercial transaction between him and the accused.
● That as per the complainant, loan of Rs. 3,00,000/ was advanced to the accused on 03.08.2011 and one loan agreement in this regard was also executed on the same date.
● That the complainant took several blank signed papers and cheques on the pretext of arranging loan for the accused and same papers are misused by the complainant in Ex.CW1/1.
● That no question is asked from the accused as to how the blank signed cheques and papers were given by the accused.
● That complainant has made a false story and failed to prove his case. ● That accused has relied upon the following authorities:
The defence taken by the accused is that he gave several cheques and blank signed papers and stamp papers to procure loan from the complainant but no loan was arranged by the complainant for him. Accused in the present case is an educated person. Hence, it is difficult to believe that he would have given several blank signed papers and cheques for securing loan. No police complaint is made H.C.D. Maini v. Vikram Tiwari CC No. 443/1/12 10 and no intimation was given by the accused to the bank before filing of the present case for non returning of the cheques and blank signed papers by the complainant. Police complaint made by the accused against the complainant is not proved by the accused. Accused has also failed to prove that his some cheques were stolen from Muthoot Finance. Accused accepted that he encashed the cheques bearing no. 089913 dated 03.08.2011 for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ drawn on Canara Bank as Ex. CW3/A. The defence taken by the accused is that the complainant gave the said amount as repayment of the sum given by accused for securing loan. Accused has also not adduced any evidence to prove that he made payment of total sum of Rs.3,25,000/ to the complainant for arrangement of loan. No criminal case is filed by the accused against the complainant for misusing his blank signed papers. Written Police complaint filed by accused regarding the stolen cheques from Muthoot Finance is also not proved by the accused.