Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. Perusal of record also shows that during framing of notice, accused herself has submitted that cheque in question bears his signature, however at the time of statement of accused she has deposed that two unsigned cheques including the cheque in question were taken by Bhawna. Therefore, there are contradiction in the defence taken by the accused herself, moreover the reason of return of cheque shows that it was returned due to "insufficient funds" and not because of "signature differ".

31. Also, the entire defence of the accused is based upon the lady Bhawna and as per the accused Lady Bhawna was working as agent of the complainant and to establish the same the counsel for the accused has asked the questions from the complainant in cross examination, which complainant had denied. It is pertinent to mention there that the said lady Bhawna appeared in witness box as DW1 and had not produced any document or salary statement or any whatsapp chat or any authority letter or ID proof issued by the complainant to prove that she had worked for the complainant at some point of time. Therefore, the defence of the accused is not giving any benefit to her.

34. Perusal of record including the evidence affidavit of complainant shows that loan was advanced to accused in month of December and pronote was also executed in the month of December.

Therefore, no question arise with respect to cancelling of loan in November 2020. Further, accused herself has admitted that she has given a signed pronote to Bhawna which also bears the date of December 2020 including the signed and thumb impression of the accused which accused did not challenge. There is one more contradiction regarding the pronote found in the statement of the accused as firstly accused deposed that Bhawna took the unsigned cheque and blank pronote and documents from her. While in other answers during her statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. she had signed the pronote and receipts at the office of the complainant and in the presence of the complainant. Furthermore, accused has nowhere deposed that when she visited the office of the complainant. Also accused has not shown that she has arranged the loan from somewhere else after her loan got rejected by the complainant because as per her, she needed the loan at that time.