Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Lagadapati Malyadri, filed two criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000 to the respondents, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner sent a demand notice to the respondents, but the respondents claimed they did not receive it. The trial court, in C.C.No.53283/2017, acquitted the accused on the grounds that the notice was not properly served and that the complainant was not examined as a witness. The appellate court, in Crl.A.No.25009/2020 and Crl.A.No.25008/2020, upheld the acquittal. The petitioner argued that the notice was sent to the correct address and that the complainant's affidavit evidence was sufficient under Section 145 of the NI Act. The High Court examined the records and found that the notice was sent to the respondents' correct address and that the respondents had refused to accept it, which constituted deemed service. The court also noted that the complainant had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, and the accused did not seek to cross-examine him. The High Court held that the trial court and appellate court had erred in acquitting the accused on these grounds. The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the trial court to proceed with the case from the stage of examination of the complainant.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Service of Notice - Proper service of demand notice is a prerequisite for prosecution under Section 138; the court must ensure that the notice was served in accordance with Section 138(b) and Section 142 of the NI Act. In this case, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the notice was not properly served, but the revisional court found that the notice was sent to the correct address and deemed served. (Paras 5-10) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Examination of Complainant - Under Section 143 read with Section 145 of the NI Act, the complainant's evidence by way of affidavit is permissible, but the complainant must be examined as a witness if the accused disputes the evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused for non-examination of the complainant, but the revisional court held that the complainant's affidavit evidence was sufficient and the accused did not seek cross-examination. (Paras 11-15) C) Code of Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 - Scope - The High Court in revision can interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence. The revisional court set aside the acquittal as the trial court and appellate court had misappreciated the evidence regarding service of notice and examination of complainant. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the grounds of improper service of demand notice and non-examination of the complainant?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the judgments of the trial court and appellate court, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the trial court to proceed from the stage of examination of the complainant.
Law Points
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
- Section 142
- Section 143
- Section 145
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Section 397
- Section 401
- Service of notice
- Examination of complainant
- Dishonour of cheque
- Presumption under Section 139
- Revisional jurisdiction
