Telangana High Court
CRLP/2563/2010 of M.Sudhakar, Vs Noorbasha Nagoor Saheb, on 30 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2563 of 2010 DATE: 30.12.2011 Between: M.Sudhakar …… Petitioner And Noorbasha Nagoor Saheb and another ...Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OFANDHRAPRADESHAT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALAGOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2563 of 2010
DATE: 30.12.2011
Between:
M.Sudhakar
……PetitionerAnd
Noorbasha Nagoor Saheb and another
...Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.2563 of 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused of offence punishable underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, theAct). The only point urged by the petitioner’s counsel in thiscase is with regard to service of statutory notice underSection 138 proviso (b) of the Act. It is contended that thesaid notice is not in accordance with law. The cheque wasdishonoured in this case for want of sufficient funds. Thecomplainant/1[st] respondent got issued the statutory notice dated 12.12.2006 demanding him to pay the chequeamount within 15 days. The said notice was returned forwant of door number. The complainant again sent the samenotice to the accused with door number on 19.12.2006. The said notice was returned unserved with anendorsement that the addressee not claimed and hencereturned to the sender. The returned notice was sent to thecomplainant on 30.12.2006. The complainant contends thatthe said notice was deemed to have been served as perSection 27 of the General Clauses Act. But the complaint inthe lower Court was verified and signed by the complainanton 03.01.2007. It was presented in the lower Court on thesame day i.e., on 03.01.2007. When the notice wasreturned unserved on 30.12.2006, the complainant shouldhave waited for 15 days thereafter for payment. Withoutdoing so, he rushed to the Court in about 4 days thereof. The offence under Section 138 of the Act becomescomplete only after 15 days of receipt of the notice as perproviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act. In this case, thedeemed service is on 30.12.2006 when the unclaimednotice was returned. In that view of the matter, thecomplaint in the lower Court was filed even before commission of the offence. The complaint is premature.
2) Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashingproceedings in C.C. No.21 of 2007 on the file of AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parchoor, PrakasamDistrict.
_______________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
December 30, 2011ksh