Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CT Cases 6960/2017 Sarabjit Singh. Vs. Mandeep Singh Page 3 of 13 Digitally signed by JAYANTI

JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date: 2025.09.10 17:55:18 +0530 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE

6. On allowing the application under section 145(2) of the Act, the Complainant stepped in witness box as CW-1 and tendered his post-summoning affidavit of evidence reiterating almost all facts of complaint, stating all exhibits. Thereafter CW- 1 cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he works in real estate and earning Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month. He deposed that he does not remember the source of the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs lend to the accused. The complainant deposed that he used to visit Singh foods once or twice a month. He further deposed that Ex. CW1/1 was signed by Sh. Prakash Malicha @ Malik.

(ii) The said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability, which is legally enforceable.
(iii) The said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
CT Cases 6960/2017 Sarabjit Singh. Vs. Mandeep Singh Page 6 of 13
CT Cases 6960/2017 Sarabjit Singh. Vs. Mandeep Singh Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed

by JAYANTI JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date: 2025.09.10 17:55:45 +0530 subsequently, within 15 days of service of summons respectively. Hence, fifth and sixth ingredient also stand fulfilled.

18. Once the ingredients mentioned in the forgoing, paragraph are established by the complainant, then as soon as the execution of impugned cheque is admitted by the accused, a fact base is established to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. No additional evidence is required for presuming the existence of legally enforceable debt.

3 (2001) 6 SCC 16 (Decided on July 11, 2001). 4 (2010) 11 SCC 441.

5 (2010) 11 SCC 441.

CT Cases 6960/2017 Sarabjit Singh. Vs. Mandeep Singh Page 10 of 13 Digitally signed by

JAYANTI JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date: 2025.09.10 17:55:57 +0530 statement of notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C and his version of story in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused stated that duly filled cheque was given by him to the complaiant in statement u/s 251 Cr.P.C, however, denied filling the cheque in question in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Further, the accused stated that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh was re-paid in cash to the complainant in the statement of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C, however, the accused stated that Rs. 1 lakh was paid to the complainant in various installments in cash.