BALAMURUGAN Vs. K. KADIRVEL.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Puducherry, by judgment dated 08.03.2006 in C. C. No. 531 of 2004, for an offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The said conviction and sentence were, confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, by judgment dated 28.04.2008 in C. A. No. 37 of 2006. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner/ accused has come before this Court with this revision.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would firstly submit that both Courts below have failed to take Into consideration the vital aspect regarding the notice not having been served on the revision petitioner. The notice has been addressed to the business place of the revision petitioner's father and not addressed to his house. In fact, to prove this fact, the revision petitioner/accused has examined himself as D.W. 1 and also marked Ex. D.1-Codicil, which is a Codicil to a Trust Deed, dated 06.01.2006. in which, both the revision petitioner as well as the respondent are parties. In the Codicil. the new address has been given. Having known the new address, the respondent has not sent the notice to the new address of the revision petitioner. When there is no service of notice. the very investigation of the Criminal Case itself is wrong.