MOHAMMED IQBAL Vs. PRAKASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act') and consequent passing of orders of conviction and sentence by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act cases), Kozhikode, (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.33/2018, and 1st Additional Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, (for short, 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.461/2019. The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to pay a fine of Rs.92,000.00 (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand only) and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of the fine amount. The fine amount was also directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec. 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'). When the judgment of the trial court was assailed in appeal, the Appellate Court has confirmed the sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that statutory notice as contemplated by Clause (b) of proviso to sec. 138 was not served on the revision petitioner. According to him, the contention was taken in the examination held under Sec. 313(1) Cr.P.C.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner, notice in the prosecution was not served on him, he being abroad at the relevant time. But he has no case that notice was not issued in an address wherein he had never stayed. The notice was taken to serve in the address furnished and was returned with endorsement 'intimated, returned to sender'. The contention taken during examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C was that he was not residing in the address in which lawyer notice was issued to him and therefore, reply notice was not sent. Therefore, there was no specific case for the revision petitioner regarding non-service of notice. He also failed to adduce evidence to establish that he had no residence in the place where notice taken for service and intimated.