9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive stop payment instructions regarding the cheques in question, if, cheques were misplaced. Further, the petitioner did not step into the witness box to stand by his defence. The defence taken by the petitioner at the time of framing of notice and while recording the statement of petitioner under Section 281 Cr.P.C. read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered as evidence. There are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he examined himself as complainant. 3. Ld. counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not examined as witness and has not even exhibited the complaint. Thus, while concluding the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since there is no recoverable debt against the petitioner, even summoning order was perverse and both the Courts below have failed to consider the said fact, accordingly, the petition is deserves to be allowed. 4. The case of the respondent No. 2/ complainant made in the complaint is that respondent No. 2 is a proprietary company, engaged in business of cloth and readymade garments and Shri Satish Chand Jain is its sole proprietor. The petitioner/ accused purchased 2000 meters of cloth for a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi- 110026 as Ex.CWl/C, cheque returning memo dated 01.07.2013 as Ex. CW-l/D, legal notice dated 26.07,2013 as Ex. CW-l/E, postal receipt as Ex. CW-l/F and tracking report as Ex. CW-l/G." 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner took the defence before both the Courts below that he had business transaction with the complainant 6-7 years ago but he had not issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. He alleged that 2-3 years back, he had misplaced his few cheques including the cheques in question and consequently, he had lodged a police complaint in this regard. However, he has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but denied having filled the contents therein. He also denied receiving any l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of V.S. Yadav vs. Reena, 172 (2010) DLT 561 and Bansal Plywood vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2017 decided on 04.09.2017), it is held that "the defence taken by the respondent No. 3 at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. or the defence taken by her in her application under Section 145 (2) NI Act or her explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. of the Code recorded on 04.02.2015 is not 'evidence' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When a person appears in the Court as a witness, he is required to state facts on oath under Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 and his examination in chief is tested on touchstone on cross-examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
