9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Notice of dishonoring of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Violation of Section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. Notice of Dishonoring of the Cheque: The petitioner, facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contested the order of the Magistrate directing the issuance of process against him. The primary contention raised was the absence of notice regarding the dishonor of the cheque as required under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The notice sent was returned with the endorsement "left, not known," raising doubts about the petitioner's awareness of the demand. The Court referred to precedents like State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hiralal and M.A. Sridhar v. Metallay N. Steel Corporation, emphasizing that deemed service of notice is subject to case-specific analysis. It was ruled that the determination of deemed service should occur after the evidence is presented and not at the initial stage, allowing the petitioner to raise this issue post-evidence presentation for the Trial Judge's consideration. 2. Violation of Section 204(2) of the Cr. P.C.: The second contention raised by the petitioner was the violation of Section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the filing of a list of prosecution witnesses before issuing summons or warrants against the accused. The Court noted the absence of such a list in the present case, highlighting the mandatory nature of Section 204(2) for absolute compliance. Citing the decision in Keshava Murthy, H.L. v. H. Veeraiah, it was emphasized that the purpose of requiring a witness list upfront is to ensure the accused is aware of the case against them and the witnesses involved. The Court disagreed with the argument of curability under Section 465 of the Cr. P.C., stating that the mandatory compliance of Section 204(2) must be upheld. Consequently, the Magistrate's order for issuing summons was set aside, and the case was remitted for compliance with the procedural requirement of filing a list of witnesses or a memo confirming the absence of additional witnesses before further proceedings. In conclusion, the petitions were disposed of in accordance with the detailed analysis provided for each issue raised by the petitioner, ensuring a fair and compliant legal process moving forward.
|
