2022 (2) TMI 721 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - interpolation/manipulation in the cheque - Service of notice - HELD THAT - Firstly with regard to interpolation in the cheque Ex. P.2, it is to be stated that if the judgment of the trial Court is perused, it is found that the learned Magistrate has considered this aspect of the matter. What is held is that while cross-examining P.W.1, a suggestion was given that figure '11' was inserted behind number '5' and that P.W.1 denied that suggestion. Except this suggestion, there is nothing on record to show that the cheque was issued for ₹ 5,000/-. It is further observed that if according to the petitioner, the respondent manipulated the cheque, he could have given an intimation to bank to stop payment - Now if Ex. P.2 is perused, a sum of ₹ 1,15,000/- is written both in words and figures. The petitioner admits the signature on the cheque and does not dispute the sum written in words. But the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque was filled up by somebody else. This argument is difficult to be accepted, because once the petitioner admits his signature on the cheque, it does not matter if the cheque is filled up by somebody else. Service of notice - HELD THAT - The petitioner does not dispute the address written on the postal cover. Postal acknowledgment contains signature in Hindi. If the petitioner does not dispute the address and if the postal acknowledgment was returned after due service, it is deemed that the petitioner received the notice. Moreover as has been argued by Sri Bryen Stienberg, it is held by the Supreme Court in the case of CC. ALAVI HAJI VERSUS PALAPETTY MUHAMMED 2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT that once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. It is held that within 15 days of the receipt of summons from the Court, the accused can make payment and insist on rejection of complaint in case he disputes the service of demand notice. In this revision petition there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence. The trial Court as also the appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence - there are no infirmity in the findings given by both the Courts below - this revision petition fails and it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the cheque and alleged interpolation.
3. Service of legal notice and its legal implications.
4. Judicial review of trial court and appellate court decisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine with a default imprisonment sentence. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the current revision petition.

Issue 2: Validity of the cheque and alleged interpolation
The petitioner argued that there was an interpolation in the cheque, claiming that the amount was altered from ?5,000 to ?1,15,000. However, the trial court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The court noted that the petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque and did not dispute the amount written in words, making the interpolation argument weak.

Issue 3: Service of legal notice and its legal implications
The petitioner disputed the service of the legal notice issued by the respondent, claiming that his signature on the postal acknowledgment was in dispute. However, the court found that if the address was correct and the acknowledgment was returned after due service, it is deemed that the petitioner received the notice. Citing legal precedent, the court held that once a notice is sent correctly via registered post, the service is deemed effective.

Issue 4: Judicial review of trial court and appellate court decisions
The petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to consider crucial aspects, such as the alleged interpolation and disputed service of the legal notice. However, the court found that both lower courts properly appreciated the evidence, and there was no infirmity in their findings. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the previous judgments.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court. The revision petition was dismissed, and the order regarding the fine amount was enforced.