P. ILANCHEZHIAN Vs. D. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order passed in C.A.No.7 of 2018 dated 22.01.2019, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

(2.) The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.210 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. The case ended in acquitted. Against the same, the respondent has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.7 of 2018 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The appeal was allowed and the case in C.C.No.210 of 2007 was remanded back to the trial Court for further enquiry. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the claim of the respondent is that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) from the respondent. To repay the same, he executed a dated cheque 30.04.2007, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Lakhs only) on 09.12.2006 and the cheque was returned as "insufficient funds". The respondent failed to prove that notice was served on the petitioner. The return notice was also not marked. There was no evidence as to the fact that the petitioner returned the legal notice. There was no record to show that the notice was sent to the correct address of the petitioner. The return cover was not produced by the respondent. The date of return of the notice was not mentioned in the complaint. It was stated that a message was intimated to the neighbours that the neighbours were not examined. The service of notice to the petitioner is 'insufficient'. The petitioner was having no knowledge regarding the notice. The service of notice must be proved.