9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued towards the LIC and the cheque presented by the applicant for encashment are one and the same. The cheque number of both cheques is 169764. It was fortunate that the accused/respondent no.1 had drawn a photocopy of the cheque prior to submitting the same for the purpose of drawing the LIC policy. The evidence on record speaks for itself. In fact the accused-respondent no. 1 had also warned the applicant/complainant that he would initiate prosecution against the complainant. However, since the applicant had initiated criminal proceedings against respondent no.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he had not taken any steps. The LIC of India or the accused-respondent no.1 would reserve their rights to initiate the criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a cancelled cheque and is at Exhibit '22' in the proceedings of the trial Court. That the premiums were to be deducted from the salary of respondent no.1/ accused, however, at the last moment, the accused had not submitted his salary documents or any other requisite documents and therefore, the policy could not be drawn. According to the complainant since they have developed friendly relations, the accused used to visit the complainant intermittently. On one occasion, he had disclosed that he has to undergo angiography and therefore had demanded money. The applicant had given an amount of ₹ 40,000/. Thereafter, the applicant had demanded money on 3 to 4 occasions and he had extended handloan to the accused for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was informed that the cheque was not traceable. The accused had also informed the applicant that he should put an endorsement of cancelled on the photocopy of the original cheque. However, he had refused to do the same. It was clear that the said cheque was forged after it was issued. The accused had also warned the applicant that he would initiate legal proceedings against the applicant for the offence of cheating and forgery punishable under Sections 420, 461, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The reply dated 26th August 2010 was further replied by the applicant by letter dated 2nd September 2010 and he had replied that upon demand of money, he was threatened by the accused and therefore the applicant had also lodged a complaint with A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. He was asked as to whether Rameshkumar Jaiswar had filed a complaint against him with the Life Insurance Corporation alleging therein that although the cash amount was taken from him towards premium, the same was not deposited with LIC and that the policy had been lapsed. The cross-examination was deferred on the ground that the applicant wanted to issue notice to the accused to produce certain documents. The documents included a Form issued by the LIC of India, a copy of the cheque bearing number 169764 drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, Mumbai, G.P.O. with the original acknowledgment and statement of account with respect to operation of ATM card of Union Bank of India pertaining to the complainant. The applicant was confronted with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r with the LIC. She has proved the show cause notice dated 25th June 2011 issued to the applicant. The order was passed on 13th August 2011, by which the applicant was demoted. The typographical errors were corrected subsequently. She has admitted in the cross-examination that the documents produced are in relation to the enquiry of the complainant, which was initiated on the basis of the complaint made by Rameshkumar Jaiswar against the complainant i.e. the present applicant. That the disciplinary authority had conducted the enquiry in a proper manner. It is also admitted that the amounts against the entries at 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 were not recorded in the account of policy, during enquiry the complainant i.e. Rameshkumar Jaiswar has sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant in favour of LIC and the same was misused by the applicant to his own benefit. Moreover, in the course of trial, he had also filed a fabricated document termed as 'Ekrar Nama' showing that the accused-respondent no.1 had agreed to repay the said amount i.e.Rs.2,40,000/. The applicant had forged the signature of the complainant on the said documents. It was on the basis of these forged and fabricated documents that the criminal case was initiated against the present respondent no.1 who had to undergo an Ordeal of the trial almost for a span of ten years. The evidence on record speaks for itself. In fact the accused-respondent no. 1 had also warned the applicant/complainant that he would initiate prosecutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
