Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The postal authority has given two endorsements: one is that an enquiry was conducted, and another one is 'no such person'. If the complainant had mentioned a wrong address or incorrect address, then the endorsement would be 'incomplete address' or 'insufficient address' or 'wrong address', but no such endorsement has been mentioned on the postal envelope. Further, the postal acknowledgment annexed with the postal envelope clearly reflects the correct address of the accused; at least the postal authority could have verified it and served the notice to the accused. Then there would be no chance of denying the service of notice. Further, the CW.1 / Public Relationship Inspector of Postal Department in his evidence has stated that he visited, with the concerned postman to the house of the accused and asked him whether the address mentioned on the postal envelope was his address. The senior postman told him that the address mentioned on the postal envelope was not the correct address of the accused, but the name of the accused clearly mentioned on the postal cover, but he did not receive the CC No. 31567 / 2021 notice. Further on, perusal of the postal cover marked Ex.P.5 discloses that the counsel for the complainant has correctly written the house number of the accused as 10/2; because of his writing style, it looks like 19/2. If the address mentioned on the postal cover, particularly the house number of the accused, is wrong, then the accused would have taken further steps by sending the postal cover to the handwriting expert to verify whether the words written on the postal cover are 19/2 or 10/2. If he has made some effort, then the court may presume that the complainant has deliberately mentioned the wrong address of the accused.

18. The learned counsel for the complainant has cross- examined the CW.1. The CW.1 deposed that, if any acknowledgment regarding a letter sent by RPAD was not returned and if he receives a complaint within 45 days, then he CC No. 31567 / 2021 will examine the postal track consignment. If the letter is delivered, then there will be an endorsement in the postal track as the letter 'delivered'. If the said letter is not delivered, then there will be an endorsement in the postal track as 'returned to sender'. After 45 days from the date of posting the letter through RPAD, no data will be available to show the status. If he receives a complaint after 18 months from the date of posting a letter, then he will examine the delivery manifest to know whether the receiver of the letter subscribed his signature or not. If the letter was not delivered, then there is a reason mentioned in the delivery manifest for why the letter was not delivered to the addressee. After 18 months, they will destroy the delivery manifest, and no record will be available regarding the delivery of the letter. If the letter is sent to the addressee through RPAD and he refuses to receive the letter, then they will mention in the endorsement as refused by the addressee, and if the address mentioned on the postal cover is wrong, then he will give an endorsement as 'incomplete address or incorrect address'. The witness has seen the postal cover marked as ExP.5 and asked him that the house number of the accused is written as 10/2 CC No. 31567 / 2021 but not as 19/1. The witness deposed he does not know whether the house number written on the postal cover is 10/2 or 19/1. He further deposed if the address of the accused is wrongly mentioned on the Ex.P.5 postal cover, the endorsement will be ' insufficient address' or sometimes the endorsement will be ' no such number', but if the address is not found on the first and second day, usually they write the endorsement as 'enquiry'. The witness, by seeing the backside of the Ex.P.5 postal cover, said that there is an endorsement as 'No such person'. The witness further deposed that he has not given the Ex.D.12 report by seeing Ex.P.5; as such, the evidence of the CW.1 is of no use because he has to collect the Ex.P.5 document and to make a detailed enquiry; then only the Ex.D.12 is considered as relevant documents. Further, he gave the report after 18 months from the date of sending a letter, and after 18 months they will destroy the delivery manifest. As such, it appears to the court that CW.1 had given the report at the instance of the accused, and he is not a competent person to speak about the delivery of the letter as per Ex.P.5 because he has not verified Ex.P.5 at the time of conducting the enquiry. If CW.1 verifies Ex.P.5 and the address CC No. 31567 / 2021 mentioned on the acknowledgment, then he could not have been given a report as per Ex.D.12.