GIRISH TOKERSHI GALA Vs. VIKRAM PROCESSORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate for the Applicant. The Applicant is the complainant in a complaint filed under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant resulted in acquittal of the Respondents.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant. He submitted that the second to fourth Respondents were partners of the first Respondent and they were duly served with the notice under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He submitted that service of notice on partners of the first Respondent is sufficient compliance with requirement of law.

(3.) THERE is a finding of fact recorded based on documentary evidence that notice as contemplated by section 138(b) was not served to the first Respondent. Elaborate discussion has been made by the Trial Court by recording that only on the back side of a copy of the notice an endorsement was made subsequently. However, it is found that as a matter of fact, the notice was not served to the first Respondent. The first Respondent is the drawer of the cheque. The liability of the second to fourth Respondents arises only by virtue of section 141 of the said Act. The service of notice under section 138(b) to the drawer of the cheque is a mandatory requirement of law.