The presumption of service of notice under Section 138 N.I. Act is valid when proper postal methods are followed, even if returned for non-delivery.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. This case is taken up in the revised call. None responds to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist.

2. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present, who states that this criminal revision may be decided on merit. Heard learned A.G.A and perused the record.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.01.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 8357/9 of 1992 ( Jai Karan vs. Ranjit Kumar Jain ), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by which the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner to face the trial under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

4. The revisionist has taken ground that the mandatory provision of Section 142 (c) read with Section 138 (b) are not complied with, the notice is defective and the same was not served upon the revisionist; it is wrongly stated in the complaint that the notices were returned by the petitioner (proposed accused) in collusion with the postman; it is also wrong that the complainant had informed the revisionist telegraphically; the notices were in the form of information and not in the form of demand notice; the Bank was informed by the accused not to honour the cheques due to a dispute, which had arisen between both the parties. Copy of the telegram is not attached, hence the revision be allowed and the order dated 08.01.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut be set aside.

5. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1-Jai Karan filed a complaint stating therein that the revisionist issued two cheques, Cheque No. Q.Q.U. No. 386443 and Q.Q.U. No. 386444 for Rs.one lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-) each on 31.0.1992 of Punjab National Bank, Bombay Bazar, Meerut Cantt. in favour of the complainant at Village Kaseru Buxure, Police Station Incholi, District Meerut. The aforesaid cheques were presented by the complainant in his Bank on 16.12.1992, which were dishonoured with an endorsement “arrangement exceeds” (insufficient balance), thus, both the cheques were dishonoured and were returned to the complainant. On 26.11.1992 and 30.11.1992, notices were sent on all the four addresses of the accused, but it was returned to the sender with the connivance of the postman, thereafter a telegram was sent to the accused at his one address, which has been served upon him. When the petitioner-accused did not comply with the notice and did not pay the amount of the Cheques, the complaint had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation against the petitioner-accused.

6. It has been averred by the petitioner-accused that he had stopped the payment on 10.11.1992. A photocopy of the aforesaid information has been annexed with the petition. According to this Court if the petitioner-accused would have informed the Bank to stop the payment, there would have been noting “Stop Payment” and not “arrangement exceeds.” It has also been averred by the petitioner that the complainant had sent mere information to the petitioner, the proposed accused and has not made any demand for payment of the Cheque Amount.

7. In this regard, I have read over the notice and from the reading of the notice, this Court is of the considered view that the notice is in accordance with the provisions of the N.I. Act and it has been mentioned in the notice that if the Cheque Amount is not provided to the complainant, he would adopt legal procedure in the matter and would file the complaint against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the alleged notice sent by the complainant to the petitioner-accused