UMADEVI KUMAR Vs. GOVERDHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant in C.C. No. 34945/2001 initiated for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act ™), alleging that respondent/accused had drawn a cheque favouring complainant for a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - to discharge legally recoverable debt; on presentation, cheque was dishonoured; statutory notice caused by the complainant to accused was refused.

(2.) THE accused while not disputing signature on the cheque had contended that the complainant, frequently visiting his house must have stolen blank signed cheque from the house of accused. The accused also contended that on 6.11.1996, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - from the complainant by pledging his L.I.C. Policy as a collateral security; during the month of October 1999, he settled entire loan amount with interest. After entire loan was discharged, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as penal interest. When the accused refused to pay, complainant has used stolen cheque to initiate complaint before trial Court. The accused has denied the receipt of statutory notice. The accused has contended that he had shifted his residence from house bearing No. 124, 20th Cross, K.R. Layout, J.P. Nagar 6th Phase, Bangalore to house bearing No. 78, 19th Cross, 20th Main, S.M.S. Layout, 5th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078.

(3.) THE learned Judge of I Appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction by holding that there was no service of notice on accused, therefore, there was no cause of action for the complainant to initiate complaint. The learned Judge of I Appellate Court has found fault with the learned trial Judge, by holding that postal cover marked as Ex. P6. bears an endorsement "left the address  and there was no deemed service of notice. The learned Judge of I Appellate Court has relied on the admission made by the complainant that accused had left his previous house about one year prior to the date of examination of complainant before the trial Court. The learned Judge of I Appellate Court has referred to the provisions of General Clauses Act, which is not relevant to facts and circumstance of the case. The learned Judge of I Appellate Court holding that there is no proper service reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted accused. The learned Judge of I Appellate Court did not bother to answer other points, which were considered and decided by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the complainant has filed this appeal.