Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 560 017 at Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the bank endorsement dtd.01.08.2019 wherein the said cheque has been dishonored for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". Ex.P3 is the legal notice dtd.27.08.2019 to the accused demanding the cheque amount within 15 days of its receipt. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt showing dispatch of said legal notice to the accused on dtd.30.08.2019. Ex.P5 is the track consignment report taken out from the postal web-site showing service of notice to the accused on 31.08.2019. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of Lease Agreement dated 28.08.2017 showing that the accused has leased out house premises of complainant and the lease amount is shown to be Rs.15 lakhs which is refundable at the end of the tenure of the lease agreement. The tenure of the lease is mentioned as 15.09.2017 to 14.09.2020. Ex.P7 to P10 are the copies of WhatsApp messages. In the cross-examination, CW.1 has admitted receipt of Rs.5 lakhs from the accused on 03.10.2020 i.e., after filing of the present complaint on 05.09.2019. But has denied the suggestion that the accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs twice in cash. Also has denied the suggestion that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has coerced the accused for issuing the post dated cheque in favour of the complainant on 01.06.2019. CW.1 has also denied the other suggestions made refuting the case of the complainant.

(Emphasis supplied by me)

25. In the case on hand, legal notice at Ex.P3 is addressed to " Sri.Suresh, No.304, Mangam Pride, Sec.2, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru." which is address of accused mentioned in Lease Agreement dated 28.08.2017. In the cross-examination, DW.1 states that he is not residing in the said address for the present. But the address mentioned in the chief- examination of accused/DW.1 is the same address mentioned in Ex.P3. The complainant has produced postal receipt at Ex.P4 showing dispatch of notice on 30.08.2019 to HSR Layout address of accused. Ex.P5 is the Track Consignment report showing delivery of the said notice on 31.08.2019. When the notice is shown to sent to correct address of accused, then notice is deemed to be served. It is for the accused to show that he has not been served. No such efforts are made by accused in that regard. Moreover the accused has not even paid the cheque amount even after his appearance before the court. Therefore, the contention of accused that he has not been served with notice has no force.

CW.1 : Sri. Rebecca Dhanasingh List of documents marked by complainant:

Ex.P1          :   Cheque
Ex.P1(a)       :   Signature of the accused
Ex.P2              :    Bank endorsement
Ex.P3              :    Legal Notice
Ex.P4          :   Postal receipt
Ex.P5              :    Track consignment
Ex.P6              :    Certified   copy   of Lease
Agreement
Ex.P7 to P10 :     Copies of What's App messages

List of witnesses examined by defence:

DW.1 : Sri. Suresh Kumar .S List of documents marked by defence: