NAZIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act') against the respondent. The main reason for dismissing the complaint was that notice under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act had not been served on the respondent and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to take cognizance and issue summons on the same, aggrieved by this order for non-issuing of summons, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition. The Additional session Judge again came to the same conclusion that since the notice dated 20th may, 1991 had not been served on the respondent and that there was no averment in the complaint that notice was served on the accused, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by these orders, the petitioner has come up in this Court challenging this order, inter alia, on the ground that in the complaint it was averred that notices were sent by registered post and the Court ought to have drawn presumption that notices sent by registered post are deemed to have been served and that the Courts below have not exercised their jurisdiction properly.

(3.) THIS petition has been contested by Mr. R. D. Jolly, appearing for the State on the ground that second revision petition is not permissible and that there was no proof laid before the trial Court for the notice having been served on the accused, therefore, the orders are justified.