9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a of the petitioner that he had issued the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh has not been established as Sukhbir Singh was never examined by the petitioner. The petitioner was given opportunity to lead his defence evidence. Despite availing the said opportunity, the petitioner had not produced any defence evidence to establish his plea that he had given the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. The present revision pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of them were friends. The petitioner approached the respondent no.2 in December, 2008 for a friendly loan of ₹ 1.5 lacs. The respondent no.2 advanced the loan of ₹ 1.5 lacs to the petitioners on 25.12.2008. The petitioner signed a promissory note on 25.12.2008. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.463757 dated 26.12.2010 for a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks account closed . The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2011 to the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The complainant/respondent no.2 examined himself to prove his case. The complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1.5 lacs was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/ complainant and to discharge his liability, he had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice. 7. To prove his case, the respondent no.2/complainant had examined himself and proved his affidavit as Ex.CW1/1, cheque in question as Ex.CW1/A, promissory note as Ex.CW1/B, cheque returning memos as Ex.CW1/C Ex.CW1/E, demand notice as Ex.CW1/G and postal receipts/returned envelope as Ex.CW1/H to Ex.CW1/K. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. Relevant portion reads as under : Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties in the light of the evidence led by them, we find substance in the plea urged on behalf of the complainant appellant to the extent that in spite of the admitted signature of the respondent-accused on the cheque, it was not available to the respondent-accused to deny the fact that he had not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for once the signature on the cheque is admitted and the same had been returned on account of insufficient funds, the offence under Section 138 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
