Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: timber in Krishan Lal Singla vs Amit Singla on 1 August, 2024Matching Fragments
1. The complainant Krishan Lal Singla has instituted this complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') against accused Amit Singla on 23.01.2020.
2. The factual matrix as can be culled out from the complaint is that the accused borrowed friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant through RTGS in his firm's bank account named as Shyam Timber Store on 20.01.2017. In first week Krishan Lal Singla v. Amit Singla of September 2017, accused issued two cheques bearing no.000134 and 000135 both dated 25.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- both drawn on HDFC Bank, but the same were returned unpaid on 03.10.2017. The complainant then issued a legal notice dated 17.10.2017 to accused, upon which accused issued fresh two cheques bearing no.012630 dated 20.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and cheque bearing no.012631 dated 20.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and four cheques of Rs.75,000/- each ie. cheque bearing no. 012632 dated 20.03.2018, cheque bearing no.012633 dated 20.04.2018, cheque bearing no.012634 dated 20.04.2018 and cheque bearing no. 012635 dated 20.05.2018 for a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. But accused requested the complainant not to present the said cheques and thereafter all of these cheques got expired. Thereafter accused transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 24.01.2018 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 25.06.2018 through RTGS in complainant's bank account and issued three cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each ie. cheque bearing no.012643, 012644 and 012645, all dated 05.07.2019, all drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce but the same again got dishonored upon presentation and a legal notice dated 23.07.2019 was served upon accused. Yet again, accused issued four cheques in issue bearing no.000172 dated 01.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, cheque bearing no.000173 dated 30.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque bearing no.000174 dated 30.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque bearing no.000175 dated 30.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, all drawn from HDFC Bank, Huda Market, Jind, Haryana in discharge Krishan Lal Singla v. Amit Singla of his part legal liability. Upon assurance of accused, complainant presented all the four cheques in question but they were returned unpaid for reason "funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 07.09.2019 and 02.11.2019. Again upon assurance of accused, complainant presented the four cheques in question but they were again returned dishonored for remarks "funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 30.11.2019 and 02.12.2019. Complainant then issued a legal notice dated 09.12.2019 to accused requesting for payment of the cheque amount within 15 days but the accused failed to make the payment thus constraining the complainant to file this complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') seeking redress against the dishonor of the cheques in question.
4. On the basis of above material and finding a prima facie case made out against the accused, the accused was summoned vide order dated 24.01.2020. Accused entered his first appearance through his counsel on 07.02.2022.
5. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused on 23.06.2023 stating out to him the substance of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His defence was recorded at the stage of framing of notice in compliance of directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Aggarwal v. State 171 (2010) DLT 51. The accused took defence that the cheque in question bear his signature and he also filled the amount in words and figures but remaining particulars were not filled by him, he did not receive legal notice, however the same bears his correct address, he is not the proprietor of Shyam Timber Store but his father was the proprietor, the said firm is not operative after death of his father, he borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant in the beginning and repaid the total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash in 2-3 instances to complainant, after that he had handed over the cheques in issue as security to the complainant, he is not able to work and Krishan Lal Singla v. Amit Singla therefore unable to pay, he admitted his liability to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-.
At the outset, it has to be proved that the accused had issued the cheques in question on his account maintained with a bank for discharge of any debt or other liability. In the instant case, accused has admitted his signature on the cheques in question Ex.CW1/7 (colly.) in his plea of defence recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. However later he denied his signatures on the same, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. But accused has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the cheques in question do not bear his signature nor did he seek to summon or examine his banker to disprove his signature appearing on the cheque in issue. Further, the cheques in question have been returned dishonored for reason "Funds Insufficient" and not for difference in or mismatch of signature. Thus, it is deemed that it was the accused who signed all the four cheques in question. The cheques in question have been drawn on the account maintained by Shyam Timber Store with HDFC Bank. The accused has admitted himself to be authorised signatory of Shyam Timber Store during the period when his Krishan Lal Singla v. Amit Singla father/proprietor was paralysed. The said fact has not been denied by accused at any stage of proceeding.
13.6. However, accused failed to lead any evidence in his defence. His above statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to his admission of liability u/s 251 Cr.P.C. Thus relying upon the admission of accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he became authorised signatory of M/s. Shyam Timber Store during the period his father/proprietor of the said firm was ill, and that he signed other two cheques Mark A on behalf of M/s. Shyam Timber Store upon instructions of his father for the same liability qua which the cheques in question were also issued subsequently, it is deemed that the four cheques in question subsequently issued to complainant on the account of the firm under the signature of accused, were also issued by accused as authorised signatory of M/s. Shyam Timber Store, more so when accused has failed to prove to the contrary.