Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Raj Kumar Batra - Applicant
Versus
Urmila Devi - Respondent
CRM-A-629-MA-2014(O&M)
Decided on : 25-04-2018
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint under Section 138 - 138 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and its requirements for a valid legal notice. It highlighted the interpretation of the notice requirement, the significance of serving the notice at the correct address, and the impact of non-signing of the notice on its validity.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent for dishonor of a cheque. The trial court dismissed the complaint citing issues with the legal notice and service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appeal, emphasizing that the respondent did not dispute issuing the cheque and failed to provide evidence for her defense. It also noted that the trial court's finding on the legal notice and service was not supported by the evidence.
Issues: Validity of the legal notice, service of the notice, and sufficiency of evidence for the offense under Section 138 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-signing of the notice did not invalidate it, especially when the notice was served at the correct address. It emphasized the importance of proving the mode of notice and the address of service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision, allowing both parties to present their evidence.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
CRM-A-629-MA-2014
1. Leave to appeal is granted. Registry is directed to number as main appeal.
Main appeal
2. Prayer in this appeal is to set aside the judgment dated 27.01.2014 vide which the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') was dismissed and the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-Raj Kumar Batra filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against respondent- Urmila Devi with the allegations that in the month of October, 2008 she had borrowed a loan of Rs.68,000/- and promised to repay the same in the month of March, 2009. On repeated requests of the appellant, the accused, after admitting her liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 020545 dated 10.05.2009 for Rs.68,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank. The appellant presented the said cheque in his Bank and the same was returned on 18.05.2009 with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 20.05.2009 and the accused despite receiving the notice has failed to pay the amount within a stipulated period of 15 days.
4. In preliminary evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and reiterated his version given in the complaint.
5. Along with the affidavit, the appellant tendered the cheque in question as Ex.C1, bank return memo as Ex.C2, Legal notice dated 23.05.2009 as Ex.C3 and the postal receipt as Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 30.07.2009. Thereafter, the respondent was summoned to face the trial.
6. The trial Court served the accused with a notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act to which the respondent-accused did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent-accused as plea of defence was recorded under Section 263(g) of Cr.P.C.. In the statement dated 31.07.2013, the respondent-accused, stated that she had borrowed only a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and she has returned back Rs.8,000/- and had issued only a blank signed cheque to the complainant as security.
7. In reply to the question put to her that legal notice dated 23.05.2009 (Ex.C3) was sent by the complainant to her demanding to make the payment, the accused replied that she had not received the legal notice. It was further stated that the appellant has taken three blank signed cheques from her and had also obtained signature on some blank pages.
8. Thereafter, the accused exercised her option to cross-examine the appellant and the cross-examination of the appellant was conducted on 29.11.2013. Thereafter, the accused closed her evidence on 23.01.2014.
9. The trial Court, thereafter, dismissed the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 27.01.2014 holding that the legal notice issued by the appellant was not signed by his counsel and, therefore, it is not a valid notice in the eyes of law. It was further held that the legal notice Ex.C3 was sent only on the first address given in the complaint and since no notice was issued on the second address, therefore, it was held that the legal notice was not served on the accused person.
10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the trial Court record.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the complaint, the appellant has given two addresses of the respondent-accused which are as under:-
“1st Address: Resident of Gali No.9, Hanuman Nagar, Nehar Paar, Faridabad.
2nd Address: Sumit Welding Works, Kheri Road, Nehar Paar, Faridabad.”
12. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has served the notice on the residential address of the respondent-accused vide registered cover and the postal receipt is Ex.C-4. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly held that it is not proved that the notice was served on the respondent-accused on her residential address.
13. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attentio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
