SOUMYA KANTI ROY Vs. HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has moved the instant criminal revision for quashing of a case relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the following grounds;

(2.) So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned it is sufficient to make an averment in the petition of complaint that the complainant has been duly authorized by the company concerned to make the complaint on its behalf. I find from the records that a power of attorney has also been filed along with the petition of complaint. The value of such power of attorney can only be assessed at the stage of the trial which has not yet commenced. Even assuming, that initially there was no authority still the company can at any stage rectify the defect by sending a person who is competent to represent the company. In this connection it would be sufficient to refer to the observation of the Honble Apex Court at Paragraph 11 in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2002 C Cr LR (SC) 249. The non-mentioning of the date when the complainant received the intimation from the bank about the dishonour of cheque is not at all relevant when the demand notice was issued within 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque. In the case at hand, the cheque was dishonoured on 4th of May, 2009 and notice was sent to the accused on 27th of May, 2009 which was received by him on June 1, 2009. The conflict, if any, in the petition of complaint as well as over writing appearing in the petition of complaint, if at all, may touch the probative value of the complainants case and is a pure question of facts and cannot be gone into at this stage.

(3.) It is also well settled that when the notice is sent to a correct address by registered post there shall be a presumption of due service. In this case there was no denial of the service of the demand notice. In this connection it would be more apposite to refer to the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 17 of the case of C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr., reported in (2008) 1 C Cr LR (SC) 69;