GHANSHYAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Leave to Appeal has been filed by the complainant Ghanshyam Sahu challenging the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Neotiable Instruments Act Cases, No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.212/2009 acquitting the respondent No.2 from the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned as well as the record.

(3.) In this case, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the mandatory notice of demand under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act was not sent at her correct address. The undisputed legal position in this regard is that a person can be prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act when the necessary compliance of the mandatory notice of demand under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act has to be made. One of the basic requirement is that when the cheque is dishonored by the Bank concerned, the holder of the cheque in due course (the complainant) has to issue a notice of demand to the account holder (accused). The notice can be served by sending the same in writing to the correct address of the account holder. In this matter, the mandatory notice of demand under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act was not sent to the accused respondent No.2 at her correct address.