Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006
Date of decision : 22.8.2008
Narinder Kumar
.....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Gurdeep Kaur ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The appellant/complainant launched a prosecution under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
respondent/accused on the allegations that a cheque issued by the
latter in lieu of a liability bounced on account of insufficiency of funds
and the respondent did not pay up even after the statutory notice
had been delivered to her by post.
Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a finding that
appellant/complainant had not been able to prove that he was having
any dealings with respondent/accused. (“In the present case as
stated above the complainant has not produced any witness to prove
that the goods were ever supplied to the accused. No document/bill
has been produced and proved by the complainant for the supply of
the goods to the accused. Moreover, the complainant is not himself
Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -2-
****
sure whether he was having dealings with the accused or not. This
fact stands established from the cross-examination of Narinder
Kumar complainant. Narinder Kumar complainant appearing as
CW1 in his cross-examination has stated that Gurdeep Kaur is
dealing in Iron business, In the very next line he has shown his
ignorance regarding the fact whether Gurdeep Kaur is doing any
business or not and there after he has specifically stated that no
dealing ever took place with Gurdeep Kaur.”)
Apart therefrom, learned Trial Judge also noticed that
the appellant/complainant had not been able to prove that the
statutory notice Ex. C4 had been addressed to the
respondent/accused at her correct address. (“The next contention
raised by accused that no notice was ever served upon her and she
has never received any notice. However, the contention of
complainant is that legal notice Ex. C4 was issued to the accused
which was received back unserved, CW1 Narinder Kumar
complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that Gurdeep
Kaur is resident of House NO. 225. He has further admitted that
notice which was sent to the accused wasw addressed as House No.
255,100 Ft. Road. Perusal of the evidence Ex. C6 containing the
notice which was served upon the accused by the complaint shows
that the notice was sent to Gurmeet kaur w/o Harminder Singh r/o
255,100 feet Road, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar was received back
unserved. This fact and admission of the complainant clearly shows
that the notice was not served at the correct address of accused. As
Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -3-
****
such no presumption can be drawn that the accused was having the
notice regarding the dishonour of cheque and that the complainant
has demanded the amount. Reliance can be placed on Suresh
Kumar Vs. Sasi 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 531 wherein it has been
held that when the notice is returned as unclaimed no presumption of
service is available if notice is not addressed to the correct address.”
The view taken by the learned Trial Magistrate appears to
be in order. It does not suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind. There is nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of
evidence by the learned Trial Magistrate.
Dismissed.
August 22, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No
Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -4-
****