M VENGAIMALAIYAN Vs. K NATARAJAN COMMERCIAL INSPECTOR COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint in C.C.No.69 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in C.M.P.No.5671 of 1998, dated 6.1.1999.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE complainant filed a complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent relating to dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,30,000. THE statutory notice was also sent on 3.11.1997 to the accused and after complying all the statutory formalities, the complaint was laid. THE accused filed C.M.P.No.5671 of 1998 for discharge and contended that there is no valued notice and as such the complaint is not maintainable under law. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the complainant also relied on Mahadevan Sunil Kumaran v. Bhadran 1992 M.W.N. (Crl.) (Supp.) Ker. 1 that under Sec.94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the mode in which the notice of dishonour may be given is mentioned, if the notice is duly directed and sent by post but miscarried, such miscarriage does not render the notice invalid. So, merely because of the fact that the notice sent by the first respondent was not received by the petitioner it cannot be said that there was no proper service of notice. It is submitted that the first respondent produced the receipt issued by the postal authorities in Court. It is for the petitioner to prove that he had not received any notice. THE prosecution now launched is not liable to be quashed for this reason. This decision is applicable to the case on hand.