MURTHY Vs. P. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Fast Track Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, dtd. 28/5/2012 in C.C.No.370 of 2011, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposing a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and fine amount of Rs.2,000.00and to pay the compensation of Rs.7,00,000.00, being the cheque amount, to the complainant and the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dtd. 22/8/2012 in Crl.A.No.179 of 2012, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) This Revision is pending from the year 2014 and when the matter came up on 10/11/2021, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is unable to lay hands on the bundle, in view of the inclement weather and sought an adjournment. However, on the subsequent hearings, on 24/11/2021, 6/12/2021 and 8/12/2021, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused was absent. Similarly, the complainant remained unserved and on 10/2/2021, fresh notice was ordered. Again on 13/8/2021, fresh private notice was ordered. Further, on 10/11/2021 also, fresh notice was ordered. However, no steps were taken on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court directed the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station to serve notice on the complainant, P.Selvaraj, who stated to have been residing at No.24, 1st Street, Bharathi Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 641004.

(3.) The Inspector of Police had enquired at the address mentioned and one Lakshminarayanan claimed that he is the owner of the premises and there was no such a person called Selvaraj in the said premises. The premises is now being used by one Khadar, S/o.Ismail. He also enquired with the local postwoman, who also informed that the earlier letters were returned unserved because there was no such person in the said address. Under these circumstances, considering the nature of this revision and that the Criminal Revision Case filed by the accused cannot be kept eternally pending for want of service on complainant, this Court requested the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) himself to be an amicus representing the complainant in the matter.