LAKHPATRAJ SAMPATRAJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Warunjikar for the applicant. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The second respondent accused has been acquitted mainly on the ground that the applicant could not establish the service of notice of demand as required by Clause (b) of section 138 of the said Act of 1881.

(2.) Shri Warunjikar for the applicant submitted that the second respondent has not stepped into witness box to rebut the presumption as regards the service of notice. He submitted that the notice sent by the applicant was on the correct address of the second respondent. He pointed out that the notice was sent at the address of the second respondent which is reflected in the plea of the second respondent.

(3.) I have considered the submissions. This is a case where notice was sent by r. P. A. D. The envelope containing the notice has been returned to the applicant with the remark 'left address'. A copy of the notice was not sent under certificate of posting in addition to sending it by R. P. A. D. As the notice has been received back with the remark 'left address', the learned trial judge has taken into consideration a distinct possibility that the notice may not have been received by the second respondent.