IN THE wan cam OFKARNATAKA AT Ba.NG,p,:i,o. ' 23?; " H DATE) TFESTHE 1211! DAY o;7:*ui;2«1nf V: BEFORE L % CRIMINAL APP1;2_1§_I_.'.VP€C§§_9O6L[_200tS;v... B THE NATIONAL CO~Qi?}§3ANKiL'Fb;,' :: 140.2035, gm BLOCK, arm: main; ~= JAYANAGAR, BA!~ECnM.C§RE «<2-9;. _ 1239.9? rrs MA:éEaG;f-:"R_, ' ' % "/9iP'PELt:}?fii?T (By M.V.RAN(}ACHF..R," , V NO.44'?-AV, 2:» cRos's.V _ em ammocx, N_A%R.i .... .. W 'VBAIRGALORE jg 79; __ RESPONDENHS) ' ,Q;.s.vARaDaa-MAN .ADV. 3 fiiiiiiii AA JT:iis,..¢RL.A. IS FYLED u/s 373 CR.P.C BY ms; mvocma . FCiR Ti~IE_.APPELIANF PRAYING THAT THIS HOITBLE cover MAY .33 PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER or D1'. 4/3/05 PASSED xv: ADDL. arm. BANGALORE, IN c.c.N<::.2sos/03 'acauxmm THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED ma THE omzncn
‘P/U/s 133 or’ N.I.AC’I’.
-42:-
THIS APPEAL comm on FOR HEARING THIS D3,.’
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUnGxnn3 W
This appeal is filed by m Af %
cnanengng the ozde.:H “‘af
aequitcing the punishable
under Section Act,
passed by : V ;t§.:.;;k1$;. Bangalore, in
2. are that the appellant;
herein under sccxion 13s of the
A ‘Act for dishommr of the cheque
for Rs.49,58,010/- Isa!’ aed by
t_he in flavour of the appenam. The
‘cam. ‘ :3: to be presarted on the very smile day and it
Tmznefore, the appellant hunch:
kJ njjfiiésgifitciled the demand mm on 26/12/2002 but the
x :2 came to be lmsmvcd as ‘not; claimed’. The no13ce’
sent Under Ccrmcate of Posting on 26/12/2002 is
2?»)
‘gi
deemed to have sewed on the respondent personally at his
residence. The respondent/accused though
fact: that his account in HSBC Ltd.,
itseli ianspite ofwh1ch’ , _’ ~’
cheque and got it an
oflenoe undcr Insmnnmfis
amount iigif the appellant was
complaint for the said
afi’e11c=e.;» ‘ –» _
. ._3; ‘ after mcording the sworn
‘rig:-7’ t, issued stmnmcms to the
Z Ttw t oemtcsted the
the trial Court without considering the cast: on
dismissed the complaint only on the yound of
‘ ‘ that the statutory notice’ was not issued wii3m1′
the period of limitation i.e., 15 days arfi tlfiore,
iv’
by setting aside the order primed A ;
5. On the otha hand, ”
respondaxt submitted tint notice
on 152:» day but fv§gotiab1e
Instmmeilts Act shall be
sent to the V’ it man he sent
not only by irnnugx the courier
or tax has been made by the
C£}B1plB.l’IIaIv’i’!i..__ It is that there is no law in
the Negrgm;-1;1eLAct that notice sent on the
as vahd’ if the pr:-.vno’ us day
ga;;g.s:uma1/pubnc ‘holiday. ‘I’hcn=:fom, the
V fight in dismissing the complaint and
respondent for the aforesaid ofimlees.
_ is a specific limitation or time Emit for sending
%% Within the stipulated time £63., 15 days and ifit
after that, than the appellant has to Ease the
” oonsequcnces. Thextfom, trgcjg-131 Court is am; in
2 M.»
. I/_,-» ,
pf,» , .
despatch the notice within 15
was pending for 5 days ‘V L’
the respondent. Under
Instnmlazts Act it is a be
issued to the accused the date of
intima1′:10n’ ….dTi§honom’ of the
cheque. The? the notice by
speed the 15% day fell due
on the so that the respondent
could llfave in time but no such attempt
A. ./.. appellant and the House’ was
I2/2002 i.c., an the 16″! day from
the ofixlfonnation from the bank about the
‘ 4.ki§f.$hon;}ur”~df cheque. Under the Ncgotiabic Instrmnents
tequimtzacnt (If gkring notice is mandatory and
VT is no pmvisison under the Act to extent the time first
x ing notice to the dr-mar of the cheque: demanding the
cheque amcunt. The notice ought to lave been sent
E
‘ E H»
> /«-”
P
-: 19 :-
11. Aooozdmgly, the apfil is dismiss:-adts devoid of . ‘ ” M
merits.