M SHEELA Vs. V GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The receipt of a registered notice by the wife of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', with acknowledgement due, sent by the appellant complainant under proviso (b) to S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in short 'the Act', whether is sufficient notice and dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate as the said notice is invalid is sustainable under the Act, are the points that arise for consideration.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikara, as Ext. P1 cheque dated 20.12.1999, has been dishonoured, when presented for clearance. She, therefore, sent Ext. P4 registered notice. It was received by the wife of the accused. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the accused that the receipt of the notice by the wife, is not a sufficient notice as contemplated under the Act. The Court also accepted the principle contained in B. Adhikari v. Ponraj ( 1996 CriLJ 180 ) and also in Subhash Chander v. Pritam Singh Machinewala ( 2003 CriLJ 2157 ). Therefore, dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused contented that the cheque has been issued from an account which was inoperative, and the complainant did not prove that the wife of the accused was the authorised person to receive a registered article on behalf of the accused.