9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt records that ornaments worth ₹ 2.30 lacs and ₹ 1.70 lac were given. It is, however, unclear whether the gold ornaments were given by the complainant to the respondent or vice versa. In the complaint, the complainant did not disclose if ornaments worth ₹ 2.30 lacs and ₹ 1.70 lacs were given by him to the respondent. The respondent examined DW-2 (Ramesh Chandra) and DW-3 (Ashok Kumar) attesting witnesses to the receipt (Ex.CW-1/3). They have supported the respondent’s version. It was specifically denied that the words in Ex.CW-1/3 were manipulated or fraudulently inserted. At no stage, the complainant lodged any complaint for fabrication of the receipt (Ex.CWCrl. 1/3) though it continued to be in his possessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent guilty for committing offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent went in appeal and it resulted in setting aside of the orders on conviction and sentence. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come in appeal. 3. In the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant claimed that in September, 2003 the respondent and his associate Ramesh Chandra (since acquitted) had approached him for acquiring certain gold ornaments worth around ₹ 4 lacs. The respondent had issued two post-dated cheques No.408915 and 408916 dated 08.10.2003 as consideration for the ornaments given by him (the complainant). A receipt (Ex.CW-1/3) was executed. On presenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med that cheques in question were issued by the respondent in the discharge of debt or other liability . 6. Admittedly, receipt (Ex.CW-1/3) was executed between the parties. However, there is controversy as to the date when it was so executed; the word Liya or Diya mentioned in it are also disputed. The complainant did not examine any attesting witness to corroborate his version. Admittedly, the revenue stamp was affixed on the receipt subsequently; there are certain alterations in receipt (Ex.CW-1/3). It further records that the cheques in question were given to the complainant as security ( Bator Amanat Diye ). The complainant alleged that these words were incorporated subsequently by DW-2 (Ramesh Chandra) in connivance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
