Allahabad High Court
Ranjit Kumar Jain vs Jai Karan on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Umesh Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023 : AHC:192893
Reserved
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 324 of 1993
Revisionist :- Ranjit Kumar Jain
Opposite Party :- Jai Karan
Counsel for Revisionist :- G S Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- AGA,Vivek Chaudhary
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This case is taken up in the revised call. None responds to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist.
2. Learned A.G.A for the State is present, who states that this criminal revision may be decided on merit. Heard learned A.G.A and perused the record.
3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.01.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 8357/9 of 1992 - (Jai Karan Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jain), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by which the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner to face the trial under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
4. The revisionist has taken ground that the mandatory provision of Section 142 (c) read with Section 138 (b) are not complied with, the notice is defective and the same was not served upon the revisionist; it is wrongly stated in the complaint that the notices were returned by the petitioner (proposed accused) in collusion with the postman; it is also wrong that the complainant had informed the revisionist telegraphically; the notices were in the form of information and not in the form of demand notice; the Bank was informed by the accused not to honour the cheques due to a dispute, which had arisen between both the parties. Copy of the telegram is not attached, hence the revision be allowed and the order dated 08.01.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut be set aside.
5. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 1- Jai Karan filed a complaint stating therein that the revisionist issued two cheques, Cheque No. Q.Q.U No. 386443 and Q.Q.U. No. 386444 for Rs. one lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-) each on 31.0.1992 of Punjab National Bank, Bombay Bazar, Meerut Cantt. in favour of the complainant at Village Kaseru Buxure, Police Station Incholi, District Meerut. The aforesaid cheques were presented by the complainant in his Bank on 16.12.1992, which were dishonoured with an endorsement "arrangement exceeds" (insufficient balance), thus, both the cheques were dishonoured and were returned to the complainant. On 26.11.1992 and 30.11.1992, notices were sent on all the four addresses of the accused, but it was returned to the sender with the connivance of the postman, thereafter a telegram was sent to the accused at his one address, which has been served upon him. When the petitioner-accused did not comply with the notice and did not pay the amount of the Cheques, the complaint had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation against the petitioner-accused.
6. It has been averred by the petitioner-accused that he had stopped the payment on 10.11.1992. A photocopy of the aforesaid information has been annexed with the petition. According to this Court if the petitioner-accused would have informed the Bank to stop the payment, there would have been noting "Stop Payment" and not "arrangement exceeds". It has also been averred by the petitioner that the complainant had sent mere information to the petitioner, the proposed accused and has not made any demand for payment of the Cheque Amount.
7. In this regard, I have read over the notice and from the reading of the notice, this Court is of the considered view that the notice is in accordance with the provisions of the N.I. Act and it has been mentioned in the notice that if the Cheque Amount is not provided to the complainant, he would adopt legal procedure in the matter and would file the complaint against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the alleged notice sent by the complainant to the petitioner-accused.
8. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that a telegram had also been sent to the accused and in response, the learned counsel for the petitioner had requested to present the cheques again for payment. By making such request through the counsel it reveals that no letter to stop the payment had been moved by the petitioner to his Bank to stop the payment otherwise no such request would have been made by his counsel and the bank would not have endorsed 'arrangement exceeds'.
9. In rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the version of the petition that he had stopped the payment and an information in this regard had been sent by him on 10.10.1992. It has already been answered earlier. If such information would have been given by the petitioner, a notice might have also been given to the complainant not to present the cheques before the final settlement of the alleged dispute, if any, subsisting between the parties. Contrary to that the local counsel of the accused wrote on the telegram to present the cheques again for payment. The petitioner has also not given any description of the dispute arose or pending between the parties, thus, this Court is of the view that, no sufficient ground could have been proved by the petitioner, on which basis the impugned summoning order might be cancelled. So far as the proper service of notice is concerned, it may also be look into and decided by the concerned Magistrate during the course of trial.
10. However, in para 26 of Vandana Gulati v. Gurmeet Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine All 13688, about the service of notice it has been laid down by the Single Judge of this court that :-
"26. In the light of the above legal position, the argument that the endorsement "not claimed/not met" is not sufficient to prove deemed service of the notice cannot be accepted, particularly when there is no evidence to rebut the presumption of service which arises both on fact and law."
11. Similarly, in Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264, it has been held that :-
"When the postman is unable to deliver the letter/notice on repeated attempts either on account of the addressee 'not found' not in station, addressee is 'left or not met' the presumption of service arises as it is not possible for a landlord to ensure that the registered letter/notice sent by him is actually received by the tenant."
12. In Ram Nath v. Angan, 1977 SCC OnLine All 275, it has been held by the division bench of this Court that :-
"Where a registered envelope with correct address of the tenant is posted and the tenant refuses to take notice or it is returned with the endorsement "not met" the notice shall be deemed to have been properly served upon him and the landlord is not required to examine the postman."
13. Though all the three cases relate to the rent cases but according to this court the ratio can also be applied in cases under Section 138 N.I Act where a registered notice under envelope are sent for service upon the proposed accused.
14. According to this Court, the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
15. This criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
16. A certified copy of this order be sent immediately to the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut to proceed with the case after informing the concerned parties.
17. Since the matter is very old, the learned Magistrate would endeavour to decide the complaint within a period of six months after receiving the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 06.10.2023.
Vinod.
[ Umesh Chandra Sharma, J ]
