Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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:31.10.2019. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:27.11.2019. Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 are the postal track consignments. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 03.01.1994 and Ex.P8 is the certified copy of Supplemental Deed dated 17.11.2012.

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.003265, dated:30.10.2019. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:31.10.2019. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:27.11.2019. 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 27.11.2019, 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 27.11.2019 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 09.12.2019. 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. Hence, 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.003265, dated:30.10.2019 .
Ex.P.1(a)       : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2          : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3          : Office copy of legal notice dated:27.11.2019.
Ex.P.3(a) : RPAD receipts.
to Ex.P3(c)
Ex.P.4 to : Track consignments.
Ex.P6



Ex.P.7   : Sale Deed.
Ex.P8    : Supplemental Deed.