LAWS(KAR)-2006-3-67

UMRAZ KHAN Vs. A JAMEEL AHMED

Decided On March 13, 2006
UMRAZ KHAN Appellant
V/S
A.JAMEEL AHMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-complainant prosecuted the respondent -accused for an offence u/s 138 N. I. Act. The fact of issuance of cheque Ex. P-1 and its dishonour is validly provisd by the complainant. A copy of the registered notice issued to the accused is marked at Ex. P-3. Ex. P-4 is the postal acknowledgment. [ex. P-5 is the postal receipt. The complainant has examined himself. The accused has admitted issuance of cheque but, disputes the issuance of notice as required u/s 138 N. I. Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused. The Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted the accused on the ground that the registered notice issued is received by the family member as per the acknowledgement. Therefore, there is no valid service of notice on the accused.

(2.) THE Supreme Court in the case of V. RAJA KUMARI vs p. SUBBARAMA NAIDU AND ANOTHER, AIR 2004 SCW 6344 has observed in para 14 that:

(3.) IN the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that once there is proof of posting of notice to correct address, it is deemed to have been served. In the instant case, the facts stand on a better footing. A family member of the accused has received the notice. The accused has not lead in any contra evidence to prove that he has not received any notice through his family member. In that view, the judgment of acquittal is bad in law.