TARUN KUMAR KHEMKA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point involved in the appeal is whether statutory notice under clause (b) of Section 138 of the N. I. Act can be said to have been served upon the respondent-accused.

(2.) AS per the petition of complaint (Complaint Case No. 52 of 2005)the respondent obtained a personal loan of Rs. 7 lac from the appellant and towards discharge of the legal debt the respondent made over a cheque for rs. 7 lac on 5. 1. 2005 drawn on Bank of Baroda, U. C. Road Branch, Kolkata which was dishonoured and consequently returned to the appellant on 26. 4. 2005 on account of insufficient fund. Appellant served a notice by a lawyer's letter dated 6. 5. 2005 which was allegedly received by the respondent and the acknowledgment card (Exbt. 4) was returned back on 9. 5. 2005. Brother of the respondent, one Punit Kumar Jhunjhunwala despatched a letter to the appellant acknowledging acceptance of the notice but requested to supply the details of the cheque. In spite of service of notice payment was not made and hence the case.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate only on the ground of non-service of the statutory notice acquitted the respondent.