PRAKASH JEWELLERS Vs. A K JEWELLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for determination is whether petitioner's demand notice was served on respondent and whether trial Court had wrongly or rightly dismissed his complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for non-service of this notice.

(2.) Petitioner filed a complaint No. 13/99 before ACMM u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act complaining of dishonouring of cheque No. 538722 dated 7.8.1996 for Rs. 1.54 lacs executed by respondent. Side-tracking other issues, trial Court converged on the issue of service of demand notice and held that the requisite notice was served on the respondent was dismissed petitioner's complaint for this. It held :- "CW-3 in his examination in chief has stated to the following effect with respect to service aspect: "The said notice sent through Speed Post, Regd. Post and UPC........." In cross-examination, this witness stated as follows:

(3.) Petitioner assails the trial Court judgment/findings on the ground that demand notice of respondent was served through registered post and postal certificate, original receipts whereof were placed on record and formed Ex. AW-1/10, AW-1/11 and AW-1/12. But trial Court had overtooked and discarded all these clutching to petitioner's statement that he had not received the AD card from the office of his counsel. The adverse presumption drawn, therefore, is said to be untenable and the trial Court finding contrary to record.