MUKUNDA MADHAB BORA Vs. KULDIP DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. The opposite party (complainant) is represented by Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel.

(2.) This pertains to a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act"). A complaint was filed on 18.3.2004 by the opposite party and in response to the summon issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati, the petitioner appeared in Court on 19.5.2004. Thereafter evidence from the complainant side was recorded.

(3.) Subsequently on 26.7.2005 the statement of the accused was recorded when the accused for the first time disputed his signature on the acknowledgment (Exhibit-11) and applied for forensic examination of the signature on the acknowledgement. This was followed by an application on 8.6.2007 where it was contended that service of notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act is yet to be proved and accordingly condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence was absent. Prayer was accordingly made for discharge of the accused and dismissal of the complaint case.