Susanta Kumar Moharana vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta on 11 May, 2005
party mentioned categorically in the complaint petition that the notice was sent to the petitioner by Regd. Post and A.D. was also received back after due service on the petitioner and in the face of such clear averments cognizance of offence under Section 138, N.I. Act cannot be refused simply because the fact of such service of notice is not specifically noted in the summary of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. In this regard, Mr. Mohanty relied on (2004) 29 OCR (SC) 866 (supra); (2000)18 OCR 398 (Biswaranjan Pattnaik v. Tee, Finance Company Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Bhubaneswar); (2001) 18 OCR 733 (Subrata Kumar Dash v. Pradeep Kumar Ram): (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 (K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr.).