RAMANNA Vs. T JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE argument of learned Counsel for petitioner Sri Ramachandra reddy was heard. The argument of respondent's learned Counsel could not be heard as he did not choose to be present when the matter was taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner who is the accused in Cri. Case No. 16209 of 1995 on the complaint of respondent made before the learned Magistrate on 15-12-1994 alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying to quash criminal proceeding against him before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the cognizance of the offence taken by him by his order dated 1-3-1995 was illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of proof of the date on which the complainant's demand notice under Section 138 (c)of the Act was stated to have been issued by complainant's Advocate.

(3.) THE certified copy of the order sheet of the Court below in the said c. C. No. 16209 of 1995 (PCR 568 of 1994) is produced along with the petition. Similarly the xerox copies and the certified copies of the said complaint dated 15-12-1994 as also the bank's endorsement is produced along with the petition. In addition xerox copies of the certified copies of the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate together with the xerox copies of the certified copy of Ex. P. 2, Ex. P. 4 xerox copy of the certified copy of both sides of postal cover and Ex. P. 5 xerox copy of certificate of posting are produced.