Virender Kumar Goel vs Raghu Raj And Anr. on 8 May, 1986
22. In the present case, the appellant/accused has not disputed
the investment made by the respondent/complainant. The
appellant/accused has also admitted his signatures on the
impugned cheques. It is one of the defence of the
appellant/accused that the other contents in the impugned
cheques were filled by Ishwar Dayal who was the corporate
head in his firm, but this sole contention is of no help to the
appellant/accused as it is not the case of the
appellant/accused that Ishwar Dayal used to fill the details
without his authority. Merely because the impugned cheques
have been filled by Ishwar Dayal, does not dissolve the
liability of the appellant/accused U/s 138 NI Act. The relation
between Ishwar Dayal and the respondent/complainant also
does not make any difference, when the signatures on the
impugned cheques are admittedly of the appellant/accused
Virender Kumar Vs. State & Anr.