AKBAR PASHA Vs. MAJIDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is preferred by the aggrieved accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Alur in CC No. 484/2005 wherein the Revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act (hereinafter referred to 'Act' for short) and sentencing him to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - as fine, in default to pay the said fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also awarding a sum of Rs. 55,000/ - as compensation to the complainant, out of the fine amount. The said judgment was also confirmed by the FTC -II & Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl. Appeal No. 46/2010 dated 9.1.2013.

(2.) THE Revision Petitioner mainly called in question the above said two judgments on the legal ground that the complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act strictly as the notice contemplated u/s. 138(b) of the Act was not served on the Revision petitioner. Therefore, without service of notice, the complaint filed by the complainant itself is not maintainable.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent -complainant strenuously contended that the notice as contemplated u/s. 138(b) of the Act has been sent to the correct and known address of the accused. The said notice was returned with a shara 'not claimed'. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption that the said notice has been served on the accused in view of the shara recorded by the postal authorities and held that it was a deemed service and therefore, the court had convicted the accused.