Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: police help... in Via Incorporation Company vs Having Office At No.14 on 5 October, 2019Matching Fragments
Now it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumption available to the Complainant U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
17. As per the crossexamination of PW.1 conducted on behalf of the Accused persons and on the basis of the defence evidence led by the Accused persons, the Accused persons have taken up the following defences;
(a) That the officials/staff of the Complainant company has taken 14cheques forcibly from the custody of the Accused No.2 and with the help of the police authorities, they have got written Ex.P4memorandum of undertaking and got signed the signatures on the said cheques. This can be seen as per suggestions made to PW.1 on behalf of the Accused persons, as per cross examination of PW.1, page No.3, Para No.4, Line Nos.5 and 6 as well as crossexamination of PW.1 page No.6, Para No.11, Line Nos.3 to 6 and cross and also as per the examination of DW.1 page No.2, Line Nos.9 to 15, which reads as under;
(c) The third defence taken up by the Accused persons is withregard to nonservice of notice Ex.P8.
18. Now let us examine the said defences raised by the Accused persons. The Accused persons have to prove the said defences taken up by them, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
19. First of all, the Accused persons have to prove that the staff members of the Complainant company have taken up either 14cheques or 11 post dated cheques from the custody of the Accused No.2 and with the help of the police authorities have got executed Ex.P4 and got written and signed the cheques, more specifically Ex.P6cheque.
25. On viewing the oral and documentary evidence, it can be said that the Accused persons have failed to prove that, the Complainant company or its staff members have taken away the cheques (either 14 or 11 cheques) from the custody of the Accused No.2 and they with the help of the police authorities, have got executed the memorandum of undertakingEx.P4 and got written and signed the said cheques, more specifically Ex.P6 cheque in question, forcibly. Thus, it is hard to believe the said defences putforth by the Accused persons. The said defences have not inspired the confidence of this Court as well as the Court below. Hence, the same is discarded.