The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be filed by the payee or holder in due course, and the necessity of valid authority for filing the complaint.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under Section 138 - 1881 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its requirements for filing a complaint by the payee or holder in due course. The court also referred to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the General Clauses Act, 1887, in relation to the legal notice and authority to file a complaint. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the lack of valid authority for filing the complaint.
Fact of the Case:

The accused issued a cheque to a Cooperative Credit Society as part payment of a loan. The cheque was dishonoured, and the society filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint was not filed by the payee or holder in due course as required by Section 138 of the Act. The lack of valid authority for filing the complaint led to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the receipt of the legal notice, the amount due and payable by the accused, and the authority to file the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of valid authority for filing the complaint, as required by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the judgments of both lower courts, and acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Act.

JUDGMENT: - The petitioner herein is accused in C.C. No.805/P/2004/C and questions the correctness of the Judgment dated 03 - 07 - 2006 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 'Mapusa, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('Act' for short).

2. The parties hereto are being referred to the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.

3. The Complainant is a Cooperative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960, as applicable to this State. The accused had obtained a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ - from the Complainant and as per the Complainant, the accused had issued a cheque bearing no.449031, dated 20 - 02 - 2004, for Rs.1,48,775/ - , drawn on Andhra Bank, Mapusa, towards part payment of the said loan amount and when the said cheque was presented for payment, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds vide endorsement dated 23 - 02 - 2004 whereupon the Complainant by registered notice dated 01 - 03 - 2004, called upon the accused to pay the said amount due on the said cheque within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. As per the Complainant, the said notice was received by the accused on or about 07 - 03 - 2004, but the accused had failed and. neglected to pay the said amount within the stipulated time and, therefore, the Complainant had filed the complaint against the accused.

4. The case of the accused - was that the said cheque was given by the accused to the Complainant Bank as security and it was not issued in discharge of any debt.

5. Three submissions have been made on behalf of the accused, by learned Counsel Ms. P. Fernandes.

6. The first is that the demand notice was not received by the accused on 07 - 03 - 2004, as on that date, the accused had proceeded to Mumbai. In support of the said plea that the accused was unavailable, the accused had examined D.W.1, whose evidence as per the learned Counsel had remained unscathed. There is no dispute that in the case at hand, the legal notice sent by the Complainant to the accused was produced at exhibit P.W.1/G along with AD card which showed that the accused had received the said notice. The accused herself had not stepped into the witness box, either to deny that the signature that appear on the said AD card was not hers nor had led any other evidence to show that the same was not received by her. The learned J.M.F.C. observed, and in my view rightly, that the address on the notice was not disputed by the accused. Relying on the case of Mohammad Ali Vs. State of Goa (2006 ALL MR (Cri) page 34), the learned J.M.F.C. noted that once notice was issued at the correct address, it was not necessary for the Complainant to prove the signature on the A.D. Card. The learned J.M.F.C. did not rely on the deposition of D.W.1 in support of the fact that the accused could not have received the said notice as the accused had proceeded to Bombay. In the case at hand, not only the notice was addressed to the correct address of the accused but was also returned as received by the accused and the accused herself had chosen not to step into the witness box to rebut the presumption which was available to the Complainant by virtue of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887. The statutory presumption was clearly in favour of the Complainant that the accused had received the said notice, which presumption the accused had failed to rebut and, therefore, the conclusion that the notice was received by the accused, could not be faulted.

7. The second submission made on behalf of the accused is that on the date when the cheque was given, only an amount of Rs.46,773/ - was due and payable by the accused. The evidence produced by the Complainant shows that the Complainant had also obtained an Award against the accused for payment of the sum of Rs.2,59,855/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, against w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document