Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2003 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (8) TMI 584 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
- Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Filing of complaint by a General Power of Attorney holder

Service of Notice Issue:
The case involved a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the appellant alleged that the accused borrowed a sum and issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds. The lower court acquitted the accused citing lack of proper service of notice as required by law. The appellant contended that notice was sent via registered post, but the postal covers were returned undelivered as they were sent to the wrong address. The court highlighted that for deemed service of notice, the requirements under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act must be met, including proper addressing, prepaid postage, and containing the document. As the notices were sent to the wrong address, the court upheld the lower court's decision that there was no constructive service of legal notice on the accused, as mandated by Section 138(d) of the Act.

Filing of Complaint Issue:
Another issue raised was the filing of the complaint by a General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the payee under Section 138 of the Act. Citing a previous Division Bench decision, the court noted that the complaint can only be filed in writing by the payee or the holder in due course, not by a power of attorney holder. The court referred to a pending appeal before the Supreme Court on a similar matter but emphasized that until the Supreme Court authoritatively lays down the law, the previous decision holds good. As the complaint in this case was filed by a General Power of Attorney holder, it was deemed not maintainable under the law. Therefore, the court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the order of acquittal by the lower court.

In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the criminal appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment of acquittal based on the lack of proper service of notice and the impermissible filing of the complaint by a General Power of Attorney holder.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates