Back
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Ranjit Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Jai Karan – Respondent
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 n
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.
Valid service of demand notice under Section 138 NI Act requires delivery to drawer; receipt by unrelated person does not fulfill precondition, rendering complaint not maintainable without cause of a....
Proper service of notice under S.138 occurs when sent by registered post, and dismissal of appeal upheld as complaint was filed late.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I.Act based on evidence of borrowal of money, issuance of cheque, and service of notice.
Proper service of notice under Section 138 is crucial, but if sent to the last known address, it is deemed sufficient, maintaining the presumption in favor of the complainant.
Proper service of statutory notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is crucial for prosecution. Lack of evidence for improper service does not invalidate the complaint.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.
Failure to provide evidence of non-receipt of statutory notice weakens a defense in Section 138 cases.
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
