9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween the parties from 2005 and that the complainant firm was established in the year 2005. However, according to the counsel for the first respondent/complainant, the sentence was split in to two by employing a full stop, instead of comma. As regards the contention of the counsel for the accused/petitioner that the cheque was presented after four months and therefore it vitiates the complaint, such argument has to be rejected for the simple reason that if the cheque was not valid or the validity of the cheque expired, the bank would not have entertained the cheque and it would have returned the cheque by specifically mentioning the reason for return of the cheque. However, in the present case, the cheque was entertained and processed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant/first respondent and the accused/revision petitioner herein in purchasing of yarn and during the course of such business the complainant/first respondent herein supplied yarn as per the request of the accused/revision petitioner and invoice was raised. However, the accused/revision petitioner did not pay the amount towards supply of yarn. After repeated demands, the accused/revision petitioner issued a cheque dated 11.08.2005 for a sum of Rs. 2,24,078/- towards purchase of yarn and on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured for the reason account closed . Therefore, on 04.02.2006, the complainant/first respondent issued a statutory notice. Even though the statutory notice was received by the accused/petitioner herein, he has nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt contended on behalf of the petitioner that even though the cheque was dated 11.06.2005, for the reasons best known, the complainant presented it only on 23.01.2006 after a period of four months. This delay on the part of the complainant in presenting the cheque after four months is unexplained and it vitiates the complaint. Further, the trial court as well as the appellate Court failed to note that the complainant did not make any entry in the ledger about the purchase price and quantity of the goods. Further, to support the entries in the ledger, the complainant did not produce the day book. In any event, the complainant did not produce any material evidence to show the supply of goods to the accused/petitioner herein and therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it gives an impression that the transaction between the parties is only from 2006. A full stop deployed in between two sentence, instead of a comma, has led to such confusion in reading the deposition. In any event, the complainant has categorically deposed that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge the past debt, the cheque in question was issued by the accused/petitioner herein. Further, the accused/ petitioner did not dispute the signature in the cheque. As contended by the accused/petitioner, the delay of four months in presenting the cheque will not in any way vitiate the complainant especially when it was entertained and processed by the banker. The petitioner is estopped from raising these contentions when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any event, the complainant has proved that there was transaction between the parties and discharged their initial burden. The presumption is that there was transaction between the complainant and the accused during which the complainant supplied certain goods for which the cheque in question. This is more so that the accused did not deny the issuance of the cheque or the signature thereof. The accused also did not give any reply notice to the statutory notice sent by the complainant. Even though it was contended before the courts below that the cheque was forcibly obtained from the accused, as rightly pointed out by the courts below, if it is true, the accused could have intimated the bankers to stop the payment of the cheque or taken some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urden lies on the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused. In the present case, to substantiate the complaint, as mentioned above, the complainant has produced ledger book which has entries relating to the transaction. The accused also did not dispute the signature in the cheque by sending a reply to the statutory notice sent by the complainant. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the complainant has discharged their initial burden and it is the accused who did not disprove the complaint given by the complainant. 10. For all the above reasons, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the courts below needs no interference. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take steps as are ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
