M/S. INDIA PRECISION & BEARING MANUFACTURES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER K. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. A.P.A. ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GIRISH PANT AT NO. B.3/B.4. KIRTI DEEP, NAGAL RAYA BUSINESS CENTRE, NEW DELHI 110046,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD The complainant in C.C. 3357/99 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order dt. 9.4.99 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows The sworn statement of the complainant's representative was recorded. The 2nd and 3rd accused are Directors of the first accused. The complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the ground that the complaint was not immediately filed after return of the first notice dt 1.11.98. The second notice was issued on 7.11.98 and the same was also returned "unserved The third notice was issued through courier service on 30.11.98 and the same was served on 5.12.98. Now the complaint has been filed on 7.1.99 before the expiry of 30 days from 21.12.98

(3.) NO doubt, in the present case, three notices were issued, but however, the first notice as well as the second notice were returned unserved" and it is not known whether the notices were sent to the correct address. Only if the notices were sent to the correct address and even then returned, then under law it can be presumed that notices already sent were sufficient. Only in the course of trial, it can be found out whether the notices were sent to the correct address and returned or they were sent to improper address and thereafter returned. Now the complainant relying upon the third notice and having served the same, has filed this complaint within the period allowed under law. Now the dismissal of the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. is not proper and correct. The matter should have been left open to be decided in the course of the trial because it requires evidence. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside