JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 7.12.2001 in I.C.C. Case No. 102 of 1998 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. Petitioner is the accused in that case whereas opposite party No. 2 is the complainant and the impugned order is an order passed under Section 251, Cr.P.C.
2. In the said complaint case cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short, ‘the Act’) was taken and process was issued to the petitioner to stand the trial. Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint and the statement of the complainant do not satisfy the requirement of law for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act inasmuch as the complainant did not satisfy the Court below about service of registered notice in accordance with Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, and therefore cause of action did not arise to take cognizance as per the provision in Section 142 of the Act. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party on the other hand argued that the complainant and the statement under Section 200 of the complainant, if read together, disclose a prima facie case by giving necessary particulars relating to the cause of action and therefore when the case has already gone to the stage of trial, the order of cognizance may not be interfered with.
3. Facts which are relevant is taken note of in the following manner. Cheque issued by petitioner for repayment of the friendly loan taken by him from the complainant. That cheque was bounced on 31st January, 1998. Complainant received the intimation on 2nd February, 1998. He issued a registered letter with AD demanding for payment as per the letter dated 10.2.1998. In the complaint, in paragraph (p) at page-6 complainant stated that on 12.2.1998 petitioner received the notice send by registered post but he did not make any specific statement in that respect in his statement recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. On the other hand, in paragraph-4 of that statement he stated that he had not received the Postal AD of that registered letter. Capitalising on the said statement of the complainant, petitioner claims for quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground that on the date of taking cognizance complainant did not satisfy on record that notice by registered letter was served on the petitioner. This Court does not find any merit in that contention inasmuch as there is no contradiction or inconsistency in the said statement relating to service of notice by registered post. In the complaint when the complainant has
stated about receipt of notice by the petitioner on 12.2.1988, in his initial statement recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. petitioner has simply stated that he has not received the AD Form (after service of the notice). Therefore, non-receipt of the AD Form does not amount to non-service of notice. The said fact is clearly established from the evidence on record. Complainant having been examined as P.W. No. 1 has stated that though the notice issued by him was received by the petitioner, but he did not receive the Postal AD and on a correspondence made by him, the Postal Authority intimated him vide Ext. 8 that the registered letter was served on the petitioner on 12.2.1998. Under the given facts and circumstances there is no lack of cause of action so as to find fault with the order of cognizance .
4. Thus, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.
Send back the L.C.R. immediately to the Court below along with a copy of this order, because it involves a part-heard trial.