Captain V.R.C.Pandiyan vs R.Manoharan on 27 March, 2012
6. On the side of the accused, it was argued that as the account of the accused was closed on 20.02.2007 and that some of the cheques of the accused were stolen and that one such cheque has been used against him in the present case. It was also argued that as the legal notice said to have been issued by the complainant had not been received by the accused and as such the case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against the accused. But, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering that the notice had been returned to the Court with the endorsement of "intimation delivered, unclaimed" were of the opinion that if the accused had really not resided in the said address, such a response would not have been given by the postal department. Further, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that through the three cheques that had been reported as missing as per Ex.R1, serial numbers of the cheques had not been furnished and the accused had not given any complaint to the concerned authorities. Further, the learned Magistrate, after scrutiny of citation produced by complainant, in P.Vadivelu Vs. K.Thangaraj reported in 2009 (1) T.N.L.R.1 (Mad) , wherein,
"the respondent had taken defence that a cheque book was lost and cheque presented by the complainant was a forged one - held, no F.R. preferred by accused for loss of cheque; hence defence of accused not sustainable - further endorsement of Bank clearly show that cheque was dishonoured for insufficient fund - Hence respondent accused is liable."