Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In support of his contention, he has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein reiterated the averments of the complaint and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. Ex.P1 and 3 are the cheques issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant, Ex.P2 and 4 are the bank endorsements, Ex.P.5 is the legal notice dt.27-10-2018, Ex.P6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the requisition to post office, Ex.P8 is the track consignment, Ex.P9 and 10 are the account statements, Ex.P11 is the receipt of sell the golden ornaments and Ex.P12 is the IT returns.

22. The accused counsel has cross examined the PW1 at length. He has denied all the suggestions of the accused counsel and accused has failed to elicit from the mouth of PW.1 that, accused has not borrowed loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant and at any point of time accused has not issued the cheque as per Ex.P1 and 3.

23. Further defence of the accused is that notice has not been served upon him, complainant has given the notice to the address which was accused not resides with an ulterior motive. But accused in his cross-examination admits that "It is true to suggest that the address mentioned in Ex.P5 and address mentioned in my election voter identity card are one and the same" and further deposed that " he has no document to show he was not resides in the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 at the time of issuance of notice", as per the said admission of the Dw1 clears that notice has issued to the correct address of the accused person. On perusal of the Ex.P8 which was the postal track consignment, it clearly mentioned that notice has duly delivered to address mentioned in the Ex.P5. Further in the cross- examination of the Pw1 dated 05.01.2024 at page 6 last paragraph accused counsel suggested that " ನಾನು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್‌ಗೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದಾಗ, ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿ ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೂರನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೇನೆ." the said suggestion was denied by the Pw1, but the suggestion clears that accused has knowledge about the dishonor of cheques on the date of its presentation, he had a certain knowledge of the cheque he has neither taken any legal steps nor replayed the notice.

24. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, there is a presumption that if the communications or letters are sent to the address wherein the person ordinarily resides or carry on his business, it is presumed to be valid service. As per Ex.P8 which is the postal track consignment, which clears that notice delivered to the address of the accused in the address mentioned in Ex.P5, the accused has got the knowledge about the notice, but he has not issued any reply. When he kept quite regarding the notice of the complainant and not issued the reply notice after getting to know about the notice and also dishonor of cheques, the complainant need not prove his financial capacity. At this stage this Court has relied on decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Sing V/s Narayan Das Mahant(Tedi Singh) 2022 SCC Online SC302, in this case Court held that, "Where the accused has failed to send reply to the legal notice, challenging the financial capacity of the complainant, at the first instance, complainant need not prove his financial capacity".

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :-

P.W.1 : Narayanaswamy List of documents marked for complainant:-

Exhibits        Particulars of the Document
Ex.P1 & 3       Cheques
Ex.P1 (a) & 3(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 and 4     Bank endorsements
Ex.P5           Legal notice
Ex.P6           Postal receipt
Ex.P7           Requisition given to post office
Ex.P8           Track consignment
Ex.P9 & 10      Account statements
Ex.P11          Receipt
Ex.P12          IT returns


List of witnesses examined for accused:
DW.1       : Kushal M.Revankar
DW.2       : Raghu
List of documents marked for accused:-
---NIL--
                                       KANNIKA M   Digitally signed by KANNIKA M
                                                   S

                                       S           Date: 2026.04.02 11:52:56
                                                   +0530




                                         (Kannika M.S.)
                                 XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
                                      & ACJM, Bengaluru.