The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to send the prior statutory demand notice to the accused in the correct address as per the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The revision petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.3806 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein.

2. The dishonoured cheque involved in this case is for Rs.15,00,000/-. The trial court, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 27.4.2012, had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.369 of 2012 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The appellate court concerned (Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Ernakulam), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 14.10.2016, had confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.15,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C.

3. It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

4. At the time of admitting this Crl. Revision Petition, this Court had ordered notice to be issued to R1/complainant and now it is endorsed by the Registry that notice sent to R1 has been returned and signed on 12.6.2017. Though service of notice has been duly completed, there is no appearance for party. Therefore, when the case had come up for consideration on the previous occasions on 21.6.2017, 23.6.2017 and 27.6.2017, this Court had adjourned the matter to ascertain whether there is any appearance for R1. Even today when the matter is taken up for consideration, there is no appearance for that party.

5. Heard Sri. R. Muraleekrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State.

6. Sri.R.Muraleekrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, has raised various contentions challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned conviction and sentence in this case. He would also argue that the complainant has not been able to prove the transactions which led to the alleged issuance and execution of the cheque. Apart from such various contentions, Sri. R. Muraleekrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, would further contend that the complainant had sent Exhibit P3 statutory demand notice dated 30.10.2010, deliberately to the Society to which the accused was a member in order to ensure that he does not receive the notice and to take coercive steps against him to pressurise him to pay off the amount, etc. It is clear from the materials on record which are relied on by the complainant as well as the evidence given by the complainant that the petitioner's correct address was not the one as shown in the demand notice and that lack of service of the said notice to the petitioner would vitiate the entire prosecution proceedings in this case, etc. It is seen that the address to which Exhibit P3 notice has been sent to the petitioner is as follows :

"T.R. Babu, Kochi Tourist Development Society,

Church Landing Road, Kochi".

It is pointed out that PW1 (complainant) has clearly admitted in his cross examination that during the relevant time in 2010, the accused was only a member of the Kochi Tourist Development Society and thus PW1 himself has admitted that the accused was never an officer bearer like Preside