ANIL RAJ Vs. INTEGRATED FINANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notices were sent to the petitioner in both the cases at hand, under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Those were returned with the postal endorsement,

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in both the above cases. Same questions arise in these cases. Hence these cases are disposed of by this common order. The first respondent Crl.M.C. No. 9013/2002 and Crl.M.C. No. 9017 of 2002 filed complaints against the petitioner, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after complying with the legal formalities under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court took cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and those cases were taken on file as C.C.No. 105/2001 and C.C.No. 119/2001.

(3.) Admittedly, notices issued to the petitioner under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act were returned in both the cases with the endorsement 'Addressee left India'. Copies of postal endorsements are also produced along with the complaint. The accused produced in these proceedings, copy of passport showing that he was not available in India during relevant time. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore contended that there is clear proof for the fact that there was no service of notice and also that the petitioner was abroad at the relevant time. Therefore, it is contended that there is no legal notices in the above cases and hence chances of a conviction are bleak. It is also argued that before issuance of summons, the lower Court ought to have considered all these aspects and see whether there are materials on record to disclose ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, as held in the decision reported in 2001 CCR 260 (SC). The petitioner on these grounds seeks to quash the proceedings initiated by the lower Court against him on the basis of the above complaints, to prevent abuse of process of Court.