Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The other contention raised by the revision petitioner was that he had not received the notice and he was not residing the address in which the notice was issued. It is true that the address in Ext.P7 return notice, will go to show that it was sent in the address namely, Mr.P.K.Abdul Latheef, C/o.Dr.P.P.Rukiya, House No.22/347, Near State Bank of India, Cotton Mill Road, Thiruvannur, Calicut-29 and it was returned with endorsement intimation given and unclaimed. It was admitted by DW1 that Dr.P.P.Rukiya mentioned in that address is none other than his wife. It is also seen from Exts.P8 and P8

(a) that he had received those postal articles from the house by name Lagoon on a subsequent period which was admittedly the house of Dr.P.P.Rukiya his wife. Probably the addresses mentioned in Exts.D1 to D6 may be his family house and he may be residing in his wife's house and that was the reason why Ext.P7 notice was sent in that address. Further, Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) will go to show that he received the postal articles from the house of his wife where he was residing. It was brought out in the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 that before they shifted to the house by name Lagoon, they were residing in different rented houses and his wife is a Government doctor and she was practising in her house also and there was a name board in that house. This was admitted by DW2. Merely because, Ext.D5 notice was issued in a different address on a subsequent period in 2001 does not mean that he was not residing in the address in Ext.P7 at the time when Ext.P7 notice was issued and Ext.D5 was in the year 2001 and he had appeared in the case in the year 1999 and he had taken a contention that he was not residing in that address. So, probably after this case, he would have shifted his residence in the house mentioned in Ext.D5 and that may be the reason why the subsequent notice was issued in that address. So, that doesn't mean that he was not residing in the address shown in Ext.P7 at the time when the notice was issued in this case and there was no possibility for Ext.P7 notice served on him as claimed by him. So, under the circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the notice was issued in the correct address in which he was residing at that time though temporarily along with his wife and the notice was returned with endorsement unclaimed after intimation was given. So, under the circumstances, courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that notice was issued as proper. He had no case that he had paid the amount covered by the cheque. So, under the circumstances, courts below were perfectly justified in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Act and the concurrent findings of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference.