VUNGARALA BERAIAH NAIDU Vs. GAJANANDA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this criminal misc. case invoking the inherent power Under Sections 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Kantabanji in I CC Case No. 18 of 2003 wherein cognizance for commission of offence Under Section 138 N.I. Act has been taken and process has been issued against him.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) THE Petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s Kapi Poultries. The complainant issued three notices in three different addresses, namely, residential address; shop address and the factory address. So far as the letters issued in the residential address and shop address are concerned, it is submitted by the accused Petitioner that those are incorrect addresses. The notice was returned unserved, therefore, the same cannot be held to be sufficient. On verification of the postal cover it appears that the addresses given therein are no doubt in variation with that of the addresses which are claimed to be correct. The addresses furnished are to some extent in complete and therefore, the letters returned unserved. As regards the letter sent in the Factory address, it is evident from the endorsement of the postal authority that the accused was intimated on two dates i.e. 4.8.2003 and 5.8.2003 about the notice. Admittedly the accused was the proprietor of M/s. Kapi Poultries. It is also not in dispute that the letter had reached the said premises. If the postal authority has intimated about the registered letter on two occasions in the address of the factory/business premises, it cannot be said that the accused had no knowledge about the letter. But curiously enough the said letter was also returned unserved even after intimation to the addressee. The dubious conduct of the postal authority speaks volume. The addressee, who had knowledge about the letter/notice, deliberately avoided to receive the same and with the connivance of postal authority could manage to return the letter and thereby deprived the complainant of taking recourse to legal proceeding. If it is construed as non service of notice, then it would completely defeat the very purpose of the Act. It would then be very easy for an unscrupulous and dishonest drawer of a cheque to keep himself away from the legal consequence.