PRAKASH Vs. VENU MULLAPPILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 1335 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case of the complainant is as follows. The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant. When the complainant demanded the money back, the accused issued a cheque drawn on the Chalakudy branch of the Canara Bank Ltd. The complainant presented that cheque for collection. It was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding back the amount. The notice was served on the accused. But he did not reply to the notice and did not pay the amount. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below failed to properly consider the relevancy of Exts.P4 and P5. Exts.P4 and P5 clearly show that a legal notice was sent by registered post to the accused. THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the address of the accused shown in the complaint and in Ext.P4 notice are one and the same. THE learned counsel further submitted that the complainant need not send the notice in the address of the accused maintained in the bank since the same will not be known to the complainant. THE legal requirement is that the notice should be sent in the correct address by registered post, which the complainant had perfectly done. THE learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the court below.