Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ex.P-Series.

Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:04.02.2020. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:27.02.2020. Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 are the postal track consignments.

11. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on the decision of (2010) 11 SCC 441 between Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan. Per contra the learned counsel for accused has relied on the following decisions :

15. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6, Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.003266, dated:30.01.2020. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:04.02.2020. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:27.02.2020. Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 are the postal track consignments.

18. Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance with law or not? As per Ex.P.3, on 27.02.2020, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused. As per Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c), the complainant has dispatched the said notice on 27.02.2020 itself. Hence it appears to this court that the complainant has issued the legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank endorsement.

19. Now, the next question before this court is whether the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused or not?. In this connection, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 viz. the track consignments, for discussion. On perusal of these documents, it appears to this Court that, the notice has been duly served on the accused on 28.02.2020. That apart, DW.1 has not deposed regarding he has not received the notice. Likewise DW.1 has not disputed the address mentioned in Ex.P3 and also in the cause title of the complaint. That apart, Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 clearly reveals that notice has been delivered on the addressee. Hence, it clearly goes to show that the accused have received the notice. That apart, the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act favours the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT: 
P.W.1     :    Sri H K Sudheendra Rao.


LIST     OF     DOCUMENTS        MARKED        ON     BEHALF         OF
COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P.1        : Original Cheque No.003266, dated:30.01.2020.



Ex.P.1(a)   : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2      : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3      : Office copy of legal notice dated:27.02.2020.
Ex.P.3(a) : RPAD receipts.
to Ex.P3(c)

Ex.P.4 to   : Track consignments.
Ex.P6
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED: