Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Per contra, ld. Counsel for accused argued that there is no legally enforceable debt/liability in favour of the complainant as the cheque in question was issued by the accused under coercion and thereat and not voluntarily. He further argued that the financial capacity of the complainant is also disputed. He further argued that the alleged advancement of loan is illegal as the accused have not mentioned the same in his ITR. He further argued that the complainant had violated the provision of Income Tax Act as the alleged loan was advanced in cash. He further argued that the demand notice was never received by the accused as the same was sent on incorrect address. He prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offence. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for accused has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Superior courts in cases titled as "Sanjay Mishra Vs, Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr." (2009) 5 Bom CR 464 and "M. D Thomas Vs. P. S. Jaleel & Anr." (2009) 14 SCC 398.

21. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.L. Varma & Sons vs. PC Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8964 has observed as follows:

"22.Legal presumption of service of notice can only arise in case the notice is correctly addressed. If the notice is incorrectly addressed no legal presumption can arise..."

"24. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates the issuance of the statutory notice as a pre-condition to filing of a complaint. The cause of action to file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only on issuance and service of statutory notice and failure of the accused to comply with the statutory notice. In the absence of service of statutory notice the cause of action would not accrue. Service of statutory notice would also include legal presumption of service if circumstances so warrant."
2022.09.09 15:02:41 +0530 CC NO.6406/2020 Suresh Siwas Vs. Kamaljit Singh PAGE NO. 12/14
22. Accordingly, if the legal demand notice bears the incorrect address of the Accused, no presumption under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897 can be drawn and the requirement of sending a legal demand notice will stand unfulfilled.
"...It is correct that I have the knowledge that the accused is not residing at D-135, Top Floor, Krishna Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-80 since 2018. (Voltd. I have got the knowledge about this fact after 6-7 months from his shifting). It is correct that in the year 2020, I was aware about this fact. It is wrong to suggest that I have sent the demand notice Ex.CW-1/4 on incorrect address intentionally."