RAMESH CHAND Vs. RAVINDER SINGH CHANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises in this petition is whether notice issued to the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was served upon him or whether it can be deemed that such notice was actually served upon him.

(2.) Without going into the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint, according to the complainant, the respondent herein had raised a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and had agreed to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. As per the complaint the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,54,000/- on 17-9-2000 in favour of the complainant in consideration of the above loan. The complainant presented this cheque through his Bank which was dishonored on 5-10-2000. Thereafter the complainant got issued a notice (Ext. C-3) to the respondent through his lawyer. This notice was issued to respondent-Ravinder Singh Chandel at his admitted address i.e. Village and P.O. Jhanduta, Tehsil Jhanduta, District Bilaspur, H. P. On the reverse of this envelope, there are three endorsements. The first endorsement is in Hindi which reads thus : "PRAPAT KARTA NEEMAN PAR REHATA HAY" Meaning thereby that the addressee lives on the following address and the address given is : "Ravinder Singh Chandel S/o Shri Kartar Singh C/o Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh (PB)." The Postman also made another endorsement to the following effect that : "The addressee is out of station dep. five days dated 19-10-2000 to 24-10-2000"

(3.) It appears that the said notice was redirected and taken by the Postal Authorities to Chandigarh and returned back with the following endorsement : "Incomplete address returned"