Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The accused had current account in his bank. He also deposed that, questioned cheque at Ex.P1 is pertaining to his bank and the said cheque was issued in favour of accused. Unless see the date, the unable to say that, exactly when the said cheque was issued by the bank to the accused and stated, the documents available in his bank. The DW.2 has further deposed that, on 22.10.2015, on the request of accused, his bank Deputy Manager got issued a letter and the said document on the objection of the advocate for complainant marked at Ex.D12. The DW.2 has deposed that, in Ex.D12, the accused has stated that, pertaining to his current account, cheque was lost, hence, he requested to destroy the same. Therefore, on 10.02.2014 in the bank computer system, the particulars of Ex.P1-cheque were destroyed. As per the bank entries of DW.2, the Ex.P1-cheque from the said date is not in existence.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.16603/2015 The DW.2 has further deposed that, at the request of account holder, the particulars were destroyed in the computer system, since the questioned cheque was submitted for encashment, it was returned stating 'refer to drawer'. On that time, though money was available in the bank account, it could not be honoured. The DW.1 and DW.2 were subjected for cross- examination from the advocate for complainant in detail.

53. It is pertinent to note that, the questioned cheque whenever submitted by the complainant for collection, the same came to be returned for the reasons 04-refer to drawer. In that regard, the accused gave explanation by way of cross-examining the PW.1 as well as in his evidence coupled with the suggestion made in the cross-examination of DW.2 that, despite, he got cleared the loan of Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant, he not returned the said cheque and hence, he gave instructions to his banker as to destroy the cheque. In that regard the suggestion made to PW.1, he denied the same. The DW.1 specifically stated that, he gave instructions to his banker to destroy the cheque, the same evidence has been reflected in the evidence of DW.2 also. More particularly, the DW.2 - Bank Manager has specifically stated that, as requested by the accused regarding particulars of Ex.P1- cheque was destroyed in his bank computer and as per bank record there is no existence of cheque at Ex.P1, therefore, they have gave endorsement stating 04-refer to drawer.

Judgment 62 C.C.No.16603/2015

54. The DW.1 and DW.2 have denied the suggestion that, by colluding with the bank officials got created Ex.D12. Either it is right or wrong, the complainant got moved an application for destroy the cheque particulars in his bank account, therefore, bank gave such endorsement. The DW.2 has specifically stated that, at the request of the accused after destroy the particulars of the cheque pertaining to the accused, the endorsement at Ex.D12 were issued by it. To disbelieve that contention, there is no valid ground before this court. From which, the only one conclusion that arrived as on 10.02.2014, the accused had disputed the validity of the cheque at Ex.P1 in the custody of complainant, therefore, as he was not liable to pay any money to complainant, under the different caption submitted an application sought for destroy the particulars of the cheque in the system. Accordingly, the bank have did and gave endorsement as per Ex.D12. Though, the advocate for complainant has objected the said document issued by the bank at undisputed point of time. From which, it can gather that, the accused has initiated necessary action, to avoid misuse of questioned cheque.