MUSLIM Vs. SETHI SYNTEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made in the instant revision petition to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.98 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in C.R. Case No.2423 of 1996, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guwahati on 03. 12. 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) and in default, simple imprisonment of 3 (three) months in a case initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended).

(2.) AT the commencement of hearing submission has been made by the counsel of the accused petitioner drawing the attention of the Court of the evidence of PW1 wherein he, during the trial, had stated that he was ready to accept the cheque amount which was returned for insufficiency of the fund and accordingly the petitioner herein is ready and willing to pay the amount for which the prosecution was launched and sentenced as aforesaid, the offence being made compoundable but the said offer has been turned down by the opposite party. Therefore, the case proceeded for hearing on merit.

(3.) THE learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant held that the accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- which was dishonoured and after receipt of legal notice the accused paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- but failed to pay the balance amount as required under Section 138 of the Act. In regard to service of legal notice the learned trial Court has held that on careful reading of the Exts. 9, 10 as well as 11, whereby the postal department informed that the notice was duly delivered to the addressee (accused) on 12.11.96, it could well be presumed that he had received the same. THE said witness PW1 was not cross- examined challenging the veracity of the evidence. THE accused has, however, denied to have received the notice Ext. 9. THE stand taken by the accused is that the postal receipt having not been properly addressed, it cannot be presumed under the law that the notice has been duly served. However, the learned trail Court after going through the entire evidence on record has answered the point Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and against the defence.