IMPORTANT POINT
Service of statutory notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is valid if received by an authorized representative or any adult member at the drawer's address, not necessarily requiring personal delivery to the drawer.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. pleased to set aside the judgment of the Learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 31.10.2019 in C.A. No. 123 of 2019 confirming the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court-IV), George Town, Chennai, in C.C. No. 2383 of 2016.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by M/s. Mookaiah & Sons (Accused No. 1) and its partner M. Ganesh (Accused No. 2) having lost their Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2019, preferred against the Trial Court judgment holding them guilty of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced A-2 to undergo 10 months S.I. and A-1 and A-2 jointly and severely pay fine of Rs. 25 lakhs with 9% interest p.a. as compensation to the complainant, from the date of dishonour of the cheque (08/04/2014) till the date of judgment in C.C. No. 2383 of 2016 dated 28/02/2019, on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. IV, George Town, Chennai, within a month, in default A-2/M.Ganesh, to undergo 2 months S.I.

2. The complaint of Mr. Gopalji Agarwal represented by his Power Agent Mr. Ramesh Babu against the revision petitioners is that, M/s. Mookiah & Sons, Pondicherry a partnership firm through its partner borrowed Rs. 25 lakhs from the complainant on 24/12/2012 for the business purpose and promised to repay it on demand along with 30% interest per annum. A pro-note was executed by M. Ganesh, Partner M/s. Mookaiah & Sons in favour of the complainant on the said date. The loan amount was transferred through bank into the account of the accused. After repeated demand to repay the loan, a cheque dated 04/04/2014, for Rs. 25 lakhs from the account maintained in the name of the first accused firm at SBI, SME Branch, Pondicherry was issued in favour of the complainant. The said cheque on presentation returned with memo “Funds insufficient.” The complainant caused notice dated 06/05/2014 to the Firm and the Partner calling upon to pay the cheque amount. They received the notice on 09/05/2014, but neither paid the cheque amount nor reply to the notice.

3. From the perusal of the records, it appears, on 26/06/2014, the written complaint presented before the VII, MM, George Town, Chennai on 26/06/2014. The complaint was returned to be filed along with condone delay petition. Then, the complaint filed along with condone delay of 2 days in preferring the complaint. The Learned Magistrate has condone the delay and taken the complaint on file assigning S.T.C. No. 58/2015. Later for want of jurisdiction, the complaint was transferred to Pondicherry, the Union Territory in which the accused carrying on its business. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Pondicherry, took the complaint on file and assigned S.T.C. No. 1420/2015. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment clarifying its earlier judgment on jurisdiction, the complaint was returned to VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 15/09/2016, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took the complaint on file as C.C. No. 2383 of 2016.

4. To prove the complaint, the Power Agent of the payee examined as PW-1. The Power of Attorney deed dated 23/06/2014 executed by Gopalji Agrawal in favour of Ramesh Babu, the Pro-note dated 24/12/2012 executed by M. Ganesh Partner M/s. Mookiah & Sons for Rs. 25,00,000/- the Statement of Account maintained by the complainant, the Cheque bearing No. ‘046803’ drawn in favour of the Gopalji Agrawal by the M. Ganesh on behalf of M/s Mookiah & Sons, the Return Memo of HSBC Bank, Chennai intimating the return of cheque for funds insufficiency and the legal notice dated 06/05/2014 with the postal department receipt dated 07/05/2014 and the acknowledgement card indicating the notices were served on 09/05/2014 were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 respectively.

5. To disprove the complaint, the Second accused Mr. M. Ganesh had mounted the witness box and go