JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES AND ORS. Vs. S.K. KOLANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the judgment dated 21.04.2008 in C.C. No. 247 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Gobichettipalayam, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section c of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 122 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Gobichettipalayam vide order dated 22.04.2010. It is against those concurrent decisions of the court below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The case of the complainant/respondent in brief is as follows:

(2.) THE only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this criminal revision case is that the petitioner has shifted his residence, hence the statutory notice said to have been issued by the complainant has not been received by him. When the statutory notice has not been received by the accused, as per the judgments of this Court reported in, 2008 1 DCR 648 [A. Muthusamy vs. G. Ayyappan] and : [2011] 1 MLJ Crl. 752 [K. Rajamanickam vs. P. Arumugam], it will amount to insufficient service of notice. He would further submit that this Court has also held that even the postal endorsement "not claimed" cannot be equated to "refused" and when the postal endorsement found on a notice issued to a person is "not claimed", it cannot be concluded that the petitioner/accused had refused to receive the same, when it was sought to be delivered to him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant categorically stated that as per Ex. D1 notice, the petitioner/accused has stated that he had surrendered all the cheque bearing Nos. 891885 to 891900; however, the disputed cheque, viz., Ex. P1 is bearing No. 993831. Therefore, even as per the admission of the petitioner/accused the dishonoured cheque was not surrendered. Accordingly, he would submit that the judgments rendered by both the Courts below does not call for any interference.