9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s necessary to prove the sending of notice to the accused. It is also appeared from the record that the accused did not pay any amount to the complainant even after filing the complaint and after receiving the notice of complaint. Therefore, proof of refusal of notice is a mere formality. In view of this Court the revisional Court did not commit any mistake by granting the permission to adduce the secondary evidence of postal receipt and the envelope. Both documents are the important documents and may help the complainant to prove his case. Opportunity of disproving is also available with the petitioners and the right of petitioners has already been protected by the revisional Court - impugned order upheld - petition dismissed. - MCRC NO.38649/2019, 38831/2019, 38642/2019, 39804/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2020 - Shri Justice B.K. Shrivastava For the Petitioners : Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel For the respondent : Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel ORDER 1. These four petitions have been filed under section 482 of CrPC on 12.9.2019. 2. The respondent has filed 4 criminal cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other side, the respondent submitted that the revisional Court did not commit any mistake by passing the order dated 28.8.2019. The documents are the substantive piece of evidence. The party cannot deny for granting justice only upon the basis of some technical grounds. The documents were submitted at the time of filing the complaint and all documents were returned to the counsel after the comparison from original and by replacing from the photocopies. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition having no any force of law and is liable to be dismissed. 7. It appears from the order of revisional Court that the Court referred the case of Smt. Rita Semual Vs. B.K.Kurmi ( order dated 16th January, 2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.1464/2012) and also referred the case of Abdul Salam Qureshi Vs. Dayanand Jaiswal (order dated 17th January, 2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.1991/2012). After referring the aforesaid 2 judgments, the Court held in Para 13 and 14 as under :- 13. This Court has taken note of and in fact, swayed with this fact that if the opportunity of adducing secondary evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accepted. 9. In the aforesaid case of Rakesh Mohindra (supra) the Supreme Court also observed that the photocopy of the document brought from the record and proved by the witness, is sufficient to prove it. The Court said in Para 24 is under :- 24. After considering the entire facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the appellant for the purpose of admission of the secondary evidence, we are of the view that all efforts have been taken for the purpose of leading secondary evidence. The trial court has noticed that the photocopy of the Exhibit DW-2/B came from the custody of DEO Ambala and the witness, who brought the record, has been examined as witness. In that view of the matter, there is compliance of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Merely because the signatures in some of the documents were not legible and visible that cannot be a ground to reject the secondary evidence. In our view, the trial court correctly appreciated the efforts taken by the appellant for the purpose of leading secondary evidence. 10. In the case of M.Chandra Vs. M.Thang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently, this revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 5. However, in the available circumstances, it is observed that while holding the trial and recording the evidence, the trial court shall extend every opportunity to the applicant to rebut the circumstances stated in the impugned application and to show that unless the original documents are produced on record such secondary evidence is not sufficient to adjudicate the matter on merits but the trial court is directed that on taking such objection either in the cross examination of the respondent s witnesses in the evidence adduced by the applicant then the same shall be considered by such court strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law either under section 65 of the Evidence Act or some other provision enacted in that regard. C.C.as per rules. 12. The case of Narsingh Ors. Vs. Shripat Singh Ors. (2014) 5 MPHT 203 = (2014) 4 MPLJ 578= (2014) 3 MPWN 2005= ILR(2016) MP 414 has been cited by both parties. In this case, the Court referred the Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act and thereafter said in Para 7 and 8 as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is mandatory requirement for the aforesaid offence that after receiving the information of dishonour of cheque, notice should be given to the accused for demanding the money. If the accused did not pay the aforesaid money within 15 days from the date of receiving the notice, the complainant may file the complaint. In Para 5 of the complaint, it is mentioned that :- 5. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice of demand dated 4.10.2013 through his counsel to the non-applicants at the addresses available in complainant s records (The Non-applicant No.1 had given his two different addresses) and demanded the amount of said cheque through the registered post, directing non-applicants to pay the amount of cheque in question within 15 days from the date of receiving the said demand notice. Though the non-applicants have received the said demand notices on 7.10.2013 and refused to accept it but even after expiry of 15 days time which has ended on 23.10.2013, non-applicants did not make the payment and hence thereby committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 15. It is appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
