Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Counsel for the petitioner-accused vehemently argued that the document in respect to track consignment (Ex. P/5) is forged document and therefore, the delivery of notice on accused is not proved. However, above argument has no weight because Ex. P/5 has been signed by the Post Master after putting the seal on it. The record further reveals that in earlier round of litigation, the copy of Ex. P/5 has been placed, however, on the objection of accused, the same was not taken on record. Ex. P/5 has been signed and seal has been put on it. Since Ex.P/5 which is a track consignment had already been placed on the record, therefore, the argument of petitioner is not acceptable that the same is forged.

19. Since above provisions do not deal with taking additional evidence on record, therefore, the argument of the petitioner is not acceptable that he was not provided the opportunity to file additional evidence.

20. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the complaint is premature, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Criminal Revision No.770 of 2024 he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhdh S. Salaskar Vs. Jayprakash M. Shah and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 689 and Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey, (2014) 10 SCC 713, however, the facts mentioned in that case are different from this case. In this case the cheque was received with the note insufficient fund on 28.09.2018. Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/4 prove that notice of demand was sent on 03.10.2018 and Ex.P/5 track consignment proves that notice has been received on 15.10.2018. Present complaint has been filed on 02.11.2018, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly held that under Section 142(B) of the Act and proviso of Section 138 (C) of the Act the cause of action has been accrued on 31.10.2018 to the complainant who has filed this complaint after 31.10.2018 on 02.11.2018.