IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE gm DAY OF DEC EMBER, _
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE HULLIVAEIESV
CRL.A.NO. 5553./2:009
BETWEEN: S S
SRI NARAYANAN NAIR,
S/O LATE E K NAIR, .
AGED ABOUT 71 _ '-
DOOR NO. 314, 3RD CROSS, V
NETAJE NAGAR(.POLICEILAYOUT}__
ALANAHALLI... 'j I . -I '
MYSORE -- 4.10.
{By SRI GIjR_D?i.G*ANEs3H.
AND:
SRI C. SUNI)ARAN,' _
S/O cI~IELLAKKAI\I,«-.._' . ._
AGED ABOUT ~53 YEARS; 'I "
NELLIPAZHANCHE -- VILl;A,.. ..... .0 .
NELLAPAZPLANVCHII' {NEAR
EM}ViANUE~L 'GS: CHURCH),
PAKKO--D'D_,A. KAEPI.JI§IA::IU.~ POST,
» .I_<AI\IYAKLI:IvIAR1 D:"S--TRICT.
A .fI'A'M1LNADI_I_ -- 6.f39_1'j)62. RESPONDENT
— NARAY’.€’IN PERDAKAR, ADV. ,)
“THIS APPEAI, IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.}:’.C PRAYING
.S~ET=. ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
i’5S.05S.2O09, PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
.S,_EIRS_T CLASS-III, MYSORE, PASSED IN c.c. NO. 1540/2006
V
_z.
APPELLANT
ACQUITING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR–___ THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF l\l.I. ACT. *
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR 1»112ARiNgo*~*ri:;:_s___f flgiif,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVING: ”
JUDGMEELF A ‘
This appeal is by the conaplllainitntllv
of the JMFC–iH, Mysore in”c:je.VNo_1540/2Voo6_15«5;J
2009.
2. According ‘u§.:he accused had
borrowed a sum of complainant and
after Rs’.–F;)&;Ot)OL’;’Vtit1e accused issued a cheque
for State Bank of Mysore, New
Sar1t11epe_t”BM1’a’nve_1li.’–d:.l\r§3f_s’o.re’during January, 2006. When the
said_chequ’e \i_iiasVV}’:vreAsenteld during February, 2006 the same
dVis11onoure’d..witlv1 an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’.
‘ V:Ti’:e1’eaftei1″‘«legal notice was issued through RPAD. But the
.sé;{i.d 141’oti_c.e returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left’.
‘i’i1erea1’ter_nj;l,he complaint was filed. The trial Court, on
enquilrsqcfismissed the complaint. on the ground that there is
it A’n’o—._prot)e1* service of notice and held that offence under
«.2
Section 138 of Ncg0t..iable Instzruments Act, 1881 is no-tniade
out. V
3. Heard. The accused himself has
that notice was issued to the very”‘sa..me
address mentioned in the cause title it
4. The trial Court then’
complainant has proved issiia.nlce._of.._.notice’topthe accused,
he had failed to prove on the accused
or that the ‘a:’c.used”” the notice.
When the n.oi,ice:Ejl1is,._i_issired and-tihel iadldressee has left and Lu;
not availableflgit éii:ot11d–.be trealtedllas deemed service. In the
case on l*ian(i,_v\2~li’es.n ‘thle’–.arfiVdressee has appeared before the
Court after.issuance’.ol’s.*;immons and the addressee himself
hasfiadrnitted that.V.t_hevaddress to which notice was sent and
‘ :th’e_ad.dress_as___n1ent’ioned in the cause title is correct, there
‘shotildli*1.:ive been deemed service of notice.
” 5V_,Al3’In View of the above, the appeal is allowed and the
dated 15-52009 passed by the trial Court is set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to find out as
Xérx
to whether ihe cheque in question is a legalfy enfijxicfeable
debt or not. The parties are dimcied to appear
trial Cour{ on 17-} –201 1. Send back the recoifiis. V VV H
. }
%&
