Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In the light of the rival contention of the parties at the out set it is to be determined as to whether the complainant had complied with all the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act as contended. In this regard, the power of attorney holder of the complainant company has filed his affidavit in lieu of his sworn statement reiterating the contents of the complaint averments which itself is treated as his examination-in-chief. In addition to that he has also produced Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant company, proforma invoice dated 8.11.2016 issued on behalf of the AEROPIX, cheque dtd.20.2.2017, two bank endorsement dated 21.2.2017 and 4.4.2017, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt for having sent notice by registered post and track consignment copy as per Ex.P1 to P8 respectively to substantiate the contention. As already stated it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute Ex.P1 to P8 as such. In the light of the specific defence taken by the accused, the initial burden is on the complainant prove that cheue in question belonged to the accused and he had issued the said cheque in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his liability as contended. It is pertinent to note that the complainant company has shown the accused as proprietor of AEROPIX which is specifically denied by the accused contending that he is only Manager of the AEROPIX and the AEROPIX is not proprietorship concern, but it is partnership concern having two partners by name one Omana.S and one Danushkumar. It is also the evidence of the accused during his cross-examination that the cheque in question is signed by one of the partners of the AEROPIX by name Smt.Omana. Now in the light of the contention of the complainant, the evidence available on file is analyzed, absolutely there is no material to show that AEROPIX is the proprietorship concern and the accused is the proprietor of the said proprietorship concern. On the other hand, the evidence of the accused reveals that it is the partnership concern. In this case the accused has produced notarized copy of the VAT certificate and certificate of Import and Export Code relating to AEROPIX in support of his contention. But the said documents were not marked as they are only notarized copies and the accused has not explained as to its original. Though the learned counsel for the complainant opposed for marking of the said documents, the cross-examination of DW.1 is looked into, the evidence of DW.1 in that regard is found to be unchallenged and unquestioned. Nowhere during the cross-examination of the accused, the complainant has questioned/denied the evidence of the accused as to his defence in this regard.