S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA Vs. SHANMUGA SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2010 in C.C.No. 6789 of 2002 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

(2.) THE appellant herein as a complainant preferred a private complaint stating that the respondent/accused had borrowed loan from the complainant and to discharge the said liability, he had given Ex.P1 cheque dated 18.08.2002 for Rs. 60,000/ -. When the appellant presented the cheque for encashment on 04.09.2002, it was returned as "insufficient funds" on 05.09.2002 vide Ex.P2 return memo. Even though the appellant issued Ex.P3 statutory notice to the respondent to her correct address under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as "the Act"), the same was returned undelivered on 30.09.2002 with an endorsement "party out of station not claimed" as per Ex.P4. Therefore, the appellant preferred a private complaint against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) CHALLENGING the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the party -in -person/appellant/complainant has submitted that merely because he received demand draft for Rs. 60,000/ - from the accused, she has not filed any application for compounding the offence for payment of that amount and hence, she shall not exonerate from the criminal liability. It is further submitted that statutory notice was sent to the correct address of the accused and that the appellant has invoked presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act that notice has been duly served. But all the above aspects have not been considered by the trial Court and hence, he prayed for conviction of respondent and allowing the appeal.