IN THE COURT OF SHRI I.S. MEHTA ASJ.

TIZ HAZARI COURT NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999

POLICE STATION: VIKAS PURI

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Ashok Puri

C-524, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018. …Complainant

Versus

Mr. Makam Anjaneyulu

M/s Makam Exporters
18-20, Ismaile Building
Mohd. Shakoor Marg,
IInd Floor, Bazar Gate,
Fort, Mumbai-400 001. …Accused

AFFIDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE BY MR.

DESHRAJ GUPTA, PLAINTIFF

I, Ashok Puri son of _________________ , aged about ____

years, R/o C-524, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018, do hereby

solemnly declare and state as follows:-

1. That I am a Complainant in the above mentioned

matter.

1. That Complaint is a Consultant interalia engaged in the

business of providing liasioning work with the various public

and private department in the filed of leasing and finance.

2. That the Accused Mr. Makam Anjaneylu, the Proprietor

of M/s Makam Exporters, having its office at 18-20, Ismaile

Building, Mohd. Shakoor Marg, IInd Floor, Bazar Gate, Fort,

Mumbai, during his visit and stay at Delhi has received some

consultancy service from the Complainant with regard to his

business.

3. That thereafter, being fully satisied from the service

provided by the Complaint, the Accused herein issued a

Cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand

only) bearing Cheque No. 940005 dated 29.03.99, drawn on

Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi. Initially, the

Accused had requested to not present the Cheque and it may

be presented after some time.

4. That Complainant thereafter deposited the cheque

bearing No.94005 dated 29.03.99, Exhibited as CW/1/A with

their Bankers i.e. State Bank of India, Janak Puri Branch, on

29.03.99, however, the same was returned dishonoured by

the Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi, vide Memo

dated 24.07.99, Exhibit CW/1/B due to the reason “account

closed”.
5. That thereafter, the Complainant has telephonically

contacted the Accused regarding the aforesaid payment but

the same was fruitless.

6. That it is quite apparent that the Accused has

deliberately and willfully dishonoured the said cheque with

solely mischievious and ulterior motives. Infact, the Accused

was well aware that his account was already closed in the

said bank, despite that the aforesaid cheque was issued and

in that way the Complainant has been cheated. The

persistent effort and presentation made by the Complainant

to the Accused has also gone in vein.

7. That thereafter, on being constrained the Accused has

sent a Legal Notice dated 04.08.99. Exhibit CW/1/C due In

the said Legal Notice the accused was called upon to make

the necessary payment of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith the interest

within the period of 15 days from the receipt of the Notice.

8. It is here pertinent to mention that the Accused has

deliberately solely with mischievious motive has refused to

accept the aforesaid legal Notice. It is submitted that the

aforesaid legal Notice was sent to the correct address where

the accused in carrying on his business. The aforesaid

refused legal notice was received back by the complaint

on………….

9. That it was clear mentioned in the said notice that if the

Accused fails to make the requisite payment of Rs. 50,000/-

alongwith interest, the Complainant would be at liberty to file

a Criminal Complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act 1988 (as amended) and also initiate

appropriate proceedings against the Accused for offences

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. That the Accused has failed to make the required

payment till date.

11. That on account of the failure of the Accused to make

the payment of the aforementioned amount along with

interest despite the lapse of considerable time and further the

accused is trying to avoid to make the necessary payment.

The legal Notice which was sent to the correct address was

also refused by the Accused shows his malafide.

12. That the present complaint Exhibit CW/1/D is within

limitation as the complaint has been filed within one month

from the date of the cause of action. This Hon’ble Court also
has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try and prosecute

the present complaint.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this th day of September,

2002 that the contents of my above Affidavit are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT