Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2024.07.25 15:36:31 +0530 record by the complainant is a forged document. Moreover, the statement of the com- plainant as CW1 clearly shows that no suggestion or question was put to the com- plainant during his cross examination qua the forgery or the illegality of the promissory note. As rightly pointed out by the Ld counsel for the complainant, the accused never approached or filed any compliant before any authority regarding the alleged forged promissory note. It is not the case where the accused learnt about the existence of such promissory note only at the stage of trial. The accused had filed the reply to the legal no- tice wherein he stated that the promissory note is a forged document but still took no ac- tion against the complainant. Though the fact of non filing of such complaint does not disprove the defence of the accused, however the lack of such complaint surely calls for a higher and careful scrutiny of the defence of the accused. It was open to the accused to prove the allegations of the forgery and non-genuineness of promissory note by way of independent evidence. The accused however failed to successfully challenge the gen- uineness of the promissory note as he neither brought any oral evidence nor any docu- mentary evidence to prove the alleged forgery. Despite opportunity, the accused did not put any suggestion about the alleged forgery to CW1 during his cross examination. Thus, this court if of view that the accused merely made vague oral statements about forgery of the promissory note and his this defence also fails.