Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is presumed when sent to the correct address, placing the burden on the accused to prove non-receipt.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2023 has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner has been convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum in Complaint Case No. 235 of 2020 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque involved in the present case is for an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months and fine amount of Rs. 20 lakhs with default sentence and there is also a direction that if the compensation is not paid within time, it shall be recoverable under the provisions of Section 421 of Cr. P.C.

Submission on behalf of the parties.

4. The sole point argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Courts have wrongly recorded finding with regard to service of notice arising out of bouncing of cheque. He submits that the findings recorded by the learned Courts are perverse and call for interference.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the notices were sent at two addresses; one at residential address and other at shop address. The notice sent at shop address returned unserved by endorsement “addressee left”, but so far as the notice sent to the residential address is concerned, it was duly served.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that the Exhibit- X and X/1 were marked only for identification and those documents could not have been taken into consideration to hold that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner and the learned Trial Court had rightly observed that the speed post tracking report has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, yet the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court holding the petitioner guilty.

7. Except the aforesaid point regarding service of notice, no other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Findings of this Court

8. As per the prosecution case, the accused-petitioner had approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 15 lakhs to meet extreme financial emergency and a friendly loan was extended and the accused agreed to return the same at the earliest. However, he did not return the money in spite of repeated request and at last, he handed over a cheque dated 06.10.2020 for an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs in favour of the complainant which upon presentation bounced vide memo dated 07.10.2020 for the reasons “Account blocked.”

9. The complaint case was filed disclosing the address of the petitioner as under:

“Sri Abhishek Srivastva, son of Narendra Nath Srivastva, At present having carrying on business as “Neha Electronics” Raj Kumari Apartment, Goushala Nala Road, Jugsalai, P.S. Jugsalai, P.S. Jugsalai, District Singhbhum East 831006 Having his permanent residence at Village Harinathpur, P.S. Mohania, District Kaimur (Bhabhua) 821109.”

10. The complainant was the sole witness and he exhibited the following documents: -