In cases involving dishonor of cheque, service of statutory notice is valid if returned with an endorsement 'refused', establishing the accused's liability under Section 138.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and thereby convict the Accused/Respondent with payment of compensation to the Appellant.

2. The Appellant in this Appeal is the Complainant, who had instituted the complaint in C.C. No. 115 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankari under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Before proceeding with the merits of the Appeal, it must be stated that on 14.12.2023, when this Appeal was taken up for hearing, it was informed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant died and his legal heirs have to be impleaded. On that date, when this Appeal was reserved for pronouncing Judgment, the learned Counsel for the Appellant was also directed to take steps to bring the legal heirs on record by filing appropriate application. It is also to be observed that the death of the Appellant will not in any manner preclude this Court from dealing with this Appeal on merits. The challenge in this Appeal is as to the correctness and validity of the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court, reversing the Judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of this Appeal on it's own merits.

4. The Respondent/Accused is the wife of one Kannan (D.W-1). The said Kannan is the friend of the Complainant/Appellant. Owing to such proximity, it is stated that the Respondent/Accused requested the Complainant/Appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs as loan and she would repay it in four months. Accordingly, the Complainant/Appellant paid Rs.5 lakhs on 18.03.2010 and on the same day, the Respondent/Accused issued a cheque bearing No.194219, drawn on ICICI Bank, Shevapet Branch, Salem but requested the Complainant/Appellant to present the cheque for collection after four months. On expiry of four months, the Respondent/Accused once again requested the Complainant/Appellant to present the cheque after 20 days. Accordingly, the Complainant/Appellant presented the cheque on 09.08.2010 with his banker Indian Overseas Bank, Sankari but it was dishonoured for the reasons “insufficient funds” on 10.08.2010. Therefore, on 20.08.2010, the Complainant/Appellant issued a statutory notice to the Respondent/Accused calling upon her to pay the cheque amount. However, the notice dated 20.08.2010 was returned with an endorsement “refused”. Thereafter, on 04.10.2010 the complaint in C.C. No. 115 of 2010 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankari.

5. The trial Court issued summons to the Respondent/Accused. On appearance of the Accused copies of the complaint was furnished to the Accused. When questioned, the Respondent/Accused denied the offences alleged against her. Therefore, trial in the complaint commenced. During the course of trial, the Complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and marked Ex.P- 1 to Ex.P-5. Ex.P5 is the returned postal cover addressed to the Respondent/Accused. On behalf of the Accused, the husband of the Accused by name Krishnan was examined as D.W-1 and two other witnesses were examined as D.W-2 and D.W-3. However, no document was marked.

6. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the Accused had admitted her signature in the cheque and she did not dispute it. Even D.W-1, husband of the Respondent/Accused confirmed that the cheque was signed by his wife. The