Proper service of notice and adherence to limitation periods are crucial in dishonor of cheque cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.07.1996 passed by the C.J.M., Khurda at Bhubaneswar in ICC No.26 of 1994, whereby the accused-Respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Appellant-complainant is one of the partners of the Farm named M/s. G.N. Mohanty and Co. then dealing with pesticides and other articles. The accused-Respondent had taken pesticides worth of Rs.61,910.40 paise from the said Farm under Challan No.198 dated 24.02.1993 and Sale Memo No.441 dated 04.03.1993 against which the accused-Respondent issued a Cheque bearing No. 694420 dated 19.11.1993 drawn on State Bank of India, Pipili Branch for the said amount of Rs.61,910.40 paise in favour of the Appellant. The complainant-Appellant presented the said cheque with his banker M/s. UCo Bank, Bhubaneswar for collection of the amount, but the cheque was dishonoured due to “insufficiency of fund”. The fact of dishonour was intimated to the Appellant-complainant by the Bank on 01.12.1993, which the Appellant came to know on 02.12.1993. So the Appellant- complainant approached the Respondent-accused and offered him a return Notice to pay the dishonoured amount. But the Respondent- accused refused to receive that notice, where after the Appellant- sent the notice to the accused-Respondent by registered Post in the mode of Under Certificate of Posting on 03.12.1993. On 15.12.1993 he again sent Lawyer’s Notice by Registered Post with AD, which the Respondent- accused refused to receive. Having failed in his attempt to get return of the dishonoured cheque amount, the complainant-Appellant filed a Complaint before the competent Court registered as ICC No.26 of 1994. On recording the sworn statement of the complainant-Appellant notice was issued against the accused/Respondent.

3. On the denial of the charges by the Respondent-accused the court proceeded with the trial.

4. The complainant-Appellant to substantiate his case while examined himself as P.W.1, examined the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Pipili Branch as P.W.2 and the Postmaster, Pipili Post Office as P.W.3. The Respondent-accused on the other hand examined himself as the sole Defence Witness in support of his case.

5. As seen from the case record, the sole plea of the accused-Respondent in denying his liability was that he has not received any pesticides from the Farm of the Appellant-complainant while admitted the issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant Farm.

6. The case having been transferred to the court of the learned C.J.M., Khurda at Bhubaneswar, the matter was tried by the learned C.J.M., Khurda, who pronounced the judgment impugned herein.

7. The trial court on analysis of the evidence adduced by the Appellant- complainant and that of the defence, arrived at a factual finding that the Respondent-accused had duly issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.61,910.40 paise in favour of the Appellant-complainant in discharging of his debt as against purchase of the pesticides. It is also held by the trial court that the Appellant-complainant had presented the cheque with his Banker, who intimated the fact of dishonour of the cheque. The trial court was also of the opinion that the Notice was served on the Respondent-accused in accordance with law. The sole ground on which the trial court did not find the Appellant-complainant to have established his case is in respect of the fact that the complaint was filed after expiry of the period of limita