VEERAMALLA SRIRAMULU Vs. GARLAPATI RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant/complainant, challenging the judgment, dated 02.08.2007, passed in C.C.No.625 of 2004 by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition and Excise offences), Nalgonda, whereby, the 1st respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused and perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that there is valid service of statutory notice on the 1st respondent/accused. All the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are complied with. The address of the 1st respondent/accused mentioned in the summons sent in the subject Calendar Case and the address mentioned in the statutory notice are one and the same. The 1st respondent/accused admitted the service of summons in the subject Calendar Case on him. Therefore, a presumption can be draw that the statutory notice was sent to the correct address of the 1st respondent/accused. The trial Court erroneously held that there was no proper service of statutory notice on the 1st respondent/accused and acquitted the 1st respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment under challenge and convict and sentence the 1st respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.