9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused committed an offense u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Whether the notice of dishonor was properly served on the accused. Summary: Issue 1: Offense u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The appellant, the complainant, alleged that the accused, his full-blood brother and proprietor of M/s. S.S. Electronics, borrowed Rs. 1,00,000 for business purposes and issued a cheque for repayment. The cheque was dishonored upon presentation. The complainant issued a notice to the accused, who failed to make the payment, leading to the filing of the case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the High Court found that the accused had indeed issued the cheque and failed to repay the amount, thus committing the offense u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Issue 2: Service of Notice The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the service of notice as required under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, the High Court observed that the notice was sent to the accused's business address via courier, and the complainant asserted that the accused received it. The court referred to precedents, including K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhyan Balan, which emphasized that the notice need only be sent to the correct address, and non-receipt due to evasion by the accused does not invalidate the notice. The High Court concluded that the notice was properly served, and the accused's failure to make payment constituted an offense. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, finding the accused guilty of the charge u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The Registry was directed to issue notice to the accused for a hearing on the sentence.
|
