VARDHMAN STEEL Vs. SAI ENGINEERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether service of statutory demand notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act'), on the drawer of the cheque can be held invalid on the ground that the office copy of the said notice filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act', does not bear the signature either of the counsel, who sent the said notice or of the drawee of the cheque ?" is the question which falls for my determination in the present appeal.

(2.) In Summary Criminal Case No.3245 of 2016, the learned Magistrate has held the service of statutory notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act, invalid on the ground that office copy of the said notice does not bear the signature either of the complainant or his Advocate and eventually only on the said ground has dismissed the said complaint filed by the present appellant.

(3.) In Summary Criminal Case No.3245 of 2016, it was the case of the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) that the respondent had purchased CRCA Steel Sheets from the appellant Firm worth Rs.1,25,052/- and towards the payment of the said amount, had issued the subject cheque. It stood dis-honoured on the ground 'Account Closed'. It was his further contention that he then issued a statutory notice as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act, to the respondent and demanded the amount of the cheque from him. The notice was duly served upon the respondent, but he did not pay the amount of the said cheque within the stipulated period. In the circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the respondent. Alongwith complaint, the complainant had filed on record the copy of the cheque issued by the respondent, cheque return memo received from the bank, the office copy of the notice and the acknowledgement receipt. The acknowledgement receipt was not received within the expected period. The appellant had therefore lodged a complaint in that regard, in response to which, it was informed by the postal authorities that the said notice was duly served upon the noticee i.e. respondent. The said documents were also placed on record by the appellant. The learned Magistrate, after being satisfied that all ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, were prima-facie fulfilled, issued the process against the respondent.