V.VELU Vs. CHENNAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served to the respondent and he has entered appearance through Counsel, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the reversing judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in the matter arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The case of the complainant/appellant is that the respondent and his father had financial transaction with him. They borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.05.2004 and executed a pro-note to discharge the debt. A cheque was issued by the accused on 02.07.2004, drawn at Indian Bank, Singarapettai Branch, in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented for collection in the same branch, in which the appellant also had account. The cheque was returned with endorsement "Fund Insufficient ". On receipt of the intimation, for return of cheque dated 13.08.2004, the appellant has issued statutory notice through counsel at Coimbatore. The said notice dated 04.09.2004 was send by RPAD on the same day, but returned un-served with postal endorsement "the addressee not in town for 7 continuous days ". Hence returned. Thereafter, the complaint has been presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, which was taken on file and summons was issued to the accused/respondent and the case was contested.

(3.) To prove the complaint, the appellant/complainant has examined himself as PW.1. Marked 5 Exhibits namely the pro-note executed by the accused dated 05.05.2004 as Ex.P.1, the cheque issued by the accused on 02.07.2004 as Ex.P.2, Bank Intimation Memo as Ex.P.3, Statutory Notice dated 04.09.2004 as Ex.P.4, Returned Postal Cover as Ex.P.5.