Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.S. Chauhan, J.
Ramesh Chandra Baregama —Appellant
versus
Ramesh Chandra Joshi —Respondent
SB Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 254 of 2008
Decided on 2.1.2012
Held: The essential words are “notice of dishonour”, but it must “inform the party to whom it is given” (emphasis added). The use of the word “inform” obviously means to indicate the existence of actual facts. Whether the facts are actual or not require certain authentication by the sender. Unless and until a notice is signed, the contents of the notice cannot be said to be authenticated. Hence, the use of the word “inform” would have to be interpreted as meaning to convey the information about authenticated facts. Thus, even Section 94 of the Act impliedly requires that notice has to be signed. Moreover, in case a notice is not signed by the sender, the receiver has no means of knowing whether the facts mentioned in the notice are true or false, are real or imaginary. Therefore, an unsigned notice is no information in the eyes of law. Although, the learned counsel has relied the case of Shri Satyanarayana Gowda (supra), but this Court respectfully disagrees with Their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court. Their Lordship has not considered the first principles of law that notice must contain authenticated information. In case a notice were unsigned, there is no authentication of the information contained in the notice. Therefore, with due respect, this Court is of the opinion that notice sent under Section 94 read with Section138 of the Act would have to necessarily bear the signature of the sender. In case it does not do so, the notice is invalid in the eyes of the law. Hence, the case of Shri Satyanaayana Gowda (supra) does not come to the rescue of the appellant. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that an unsigned legal notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invalid and provides reasons requiring signature for authentication of the information in the notice. (!) (!) - The case discusses that the purpose of the notice is to inform the recipient of the existence of facts and to require action, but such information must be authenticated by the sender through signing; unsigned notices are not information in law. (!) (!) - The court held that the notice under Section 94 read with Section 138 must bear the sender’s signature; unsigned notices lead to acquittal as essential requirements of Section 138 are not fulfilled. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
R. S. Chauhan J.—The appellant, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Baregama, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Joshi, for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’ for short)
2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the appellant, the respondent had borrowed Rs. 1,46,000 from the appellant. In order to repay the said loan amount, the respondent had issued a cheque, cheque No. 468769, dated 25.3.2004, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Kapasan. The appellant presented the aforesaid cheque. However, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. Thereafter, the appellant sent a registered notice to the respondent on 25.5.2004. But despite the lapse of fifteen days, the said loan amount was not paid by the respondent to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Act.
3. In order to buttress his case, the complainant examined himself as a witness and submitted a few documents. In defence, the respondent also examined himself as a witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 17.10.2008, learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.
4. Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective; secondly, learned Judge had erred in concluding that merely because the legal notice, sent by the appellant’s lawyer, was not signed by the lawyer, therefore, a valid and the legal notice was not sent to the respondent. Relying on Section 94 of the Act, the learned counsel has contended that the purpose of a notice is merely to inform the accused of the fact that the cheque given by him has been dishonoured by the bank. The said information was sent to the respondent on 25.5.2004. Hence, it is absolutely immaterial whether the said notice was signed by the counselor not. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shri. Satyanarayana Gowda v. B. Rangappa.1
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the accused- respondent, has strenuously contended that Section 94 uses the words “notice” and the words “inform the party to whom it is given.” According to the learned counsel, there are certain principle pre-requisites of a valid notice. The purpose of the notice is not merely to inform the recipient; the purpose is to communicate authentic information to the recipient. The authenticity of the information can be confirmed only by the sender by signing the notice. In case a notice is not signed, neither the veracity, nor the authenticity can be vouched for. Therefore, it is an essential requirement of law that a notice has to be signed by the sender. Since a valid notice has not been given in the present case, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in concluding that an essential requirement of Section 138 of the Act has not been fulfilled. Hence, the learned Magistrate was legally justified in acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment, and considered the case law cited at the Bar.
7. The purpose of the notice is to inform the recipient about the existence of certain facts and circumstances and to require him to do, or to refrain from doing certain Act. The information in the said notice can neither be imaginary, nor untruthful. Thus, it is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
