The Court below also held that the complainant firm maintain the books of account in regular course of business but this evidence has been withheld by the complainant from the Court, so adverse inference is to be drawn against the accused. Apart from withholding the account books from the Court by the complainant, it was revealed from the income tax returns that nothing is shown outstanding against the accused in these returns. Accused appeared as DW-1 and has taken the stand that for the period from 1996-98, his office was with one Harish Kumar, who in relation was the brother-inlaw of the complainant and that office was in house No.1368 Sector28, Faridabad, which fact is admitted by the complainant in crossexamination. In the year 1999, accused shifted his office from house No.1368, Sector-28, Faridabad and at that time, he found that some papers and cheques were missing and the complainant assured him to return the same, if any. The accused has taken the defence that one cheque which was of the amount of 1,12,600/-, was signed by him and was misplaced from his office and the second cheque is the disputed cheque which was misplaced. The cheque of 1,12,600/was tampered by the complainant and thereafter, it was presented for encashment and was got dishonoured. The accused also produced
