AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....38 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows : The applicant/original complainant herein happens to be an LIC Agent. According to the applicant, respondent no.1 herein had issued a cheque in favour of the applicant on 20th February 2010 for an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/­. The number of the cheque is 169764. It is the case of the prosecution that one Rameshkumar Jaiswar had introduced respondent no.1 to him as respondent no.1 wanted to draw a Life Insurance policy. That they had developed cordial relations. The Respondent no.1 had also issued a cheque to him for drawing a policy. The number of the said cheque is 169764. It is a cancelled cheque and is at Exhibit '22' in the proceedings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the loan was advanced to the accused. The accused had replied the said notice on 26th August 2010 and it was clarified that in fact the cheque was issued towards the LIC policy but subject to finalisation only after consultation with his family members. That an endorsement of "cancelled" was also made by the applicant. The accused had taken the photocopy of the blank signed original cheque, which was handed over to the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant had mentioned the name of the payee of the cheque in his own handwriting. That thereafter the accused had cancelled the idea of drawing the insurance policy and had demanded the cheque. However, he was informed that the cheque was not traceable. The accused had also informed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to him by cash. On 27th June 2008, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 50,000/­. On 2nd July 2008, another Rs. 50,000/­ was given to the accused and thereafter on 8th July 2008, he had advanced an amount of Rs. 50,000/­. According to him, all amount was withdrawn from the savings bank operated and maintained in Union Bank of India, Sion Branch. The total amount mentioned in the affidavit of evidence is Rs. 1,90,000/­ and there was a demand of Rs. 2,40,000/­ and according to the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 2,40,000/­, which was dishonoured on 19th July 2010. The applicant was cross­-examined. He was asked as to whether Rameshkumar Jaiswar had filed a complaint against him with the Life Insurance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he had no occasion to go to Allahabad in the month of June 2008. It is also admitted that the said ATM card was used at Allahabad on 27th July 2008 for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/and Rs. 15,000/­. The affidavit of respondent including the list of documents is taken on record and marked Article "X" for identification. 6. It is further pertinent to note that the complainant had examined Rameshkumar Jaiswar, who has categorically admitted that he had filed a complaint against the applicant as he was cheated and his policy had lapsed. 7. The accused has examined Sonali Patwa as defence witness. She is working as a Manager with the LIC. She has proved the show cause notice dated 25th June 2011 issued to the applicant. The order was passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same day on 26th July 2008 at Mumbai as well as at Allahabad and the explanation offered by the applicant that his son is studying in Allahabad and had withdrawn the amount at Allahabad is taken into consideration. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated by Rameshkumar Jaiswar. However, the said submission holds no ground as, in that eventuality, the complainant would not have examined Rameshkumar Jaiswar as his witness. The said witness has also admitted that he had been cheated by the applicant. It is also pertinent to note that a blank cheque was issued to the applicant in favour of LIC and the same was misused by the applicant to his own benefit. Moreover, in the course of t....