2014 (8) TMI 1265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1881. 2. The brief snap shot of the present case capsuled in the complaint is that complainant is manufacturer and supplier of handloom fabrics, durries, bedcovers, furnishing fabrics etc. Accused purchased 100% cotton handloom durries from the complainant worth Rs. 3,26,565.51 vide bill No. 248 dated 25/09/1995 on credit basis. As part payment of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque No. 47844 dated 26/09/1995 for Rs. 2,00,000/-drawn on State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account which was with State Bank of India, Industrial Area, Panipat for payment but the same was dishonoured and returned to his bank by the drawee bank ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t though the dishonour of the cheque is admitted but the same was a security cheque given to the complainant and therefore the same was not meant for the purposes of enforceable of debt. He further contended that the legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused was not a valid notice as it was with regard to cheque No. 47844 dated 26/09/1995 whereas the disputed blank cheque which was handed over to the complainant as security cheque bore No. 476844. He further stated that the complainant has miserably failed to prove as to whether the cheque in question was issued to him towards part payment of Bill No. 248 dated 25/09/1995 for Rs. 3,26,565.51 or was issued against previous transaction. 7. Heard Learned counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by him, acquitted the accused. 9. Further as per the testimony of Sushil Kumar DW1 and Raman Kumar DW2, complainant prepared false bill books and the Ledger maintained by his firm so as to coerce and pressurize the accused in making the said payment. The said fact is apparent from the cross examination of Sushil Kumar DW1 wherein he admitted that carbon copy of Bill No. 248 is available in the Bill book but Mark A is not true photocopy of Bill No. 248 available in the Bill Book Ex. PW1/E. He further admitted that Bill No. 248, copy of which is available in the Bill book Ex. PW1/E is issued by his brother but he pleaded ignorance as to whom the original bill was given. In view of the said discrepancy, the authenticity of....