Jharkhand High Court
Deo Rani Dovi vs Ol Late Shiv Shankar Singh . ... on 12 March, 2021
TS THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No J P86 of 20158
Deo Rani Dovi, widew of late Raehubir Singh, resident of House Mo. 384,
Rhuryadin, PO and PS Sitararmtdera, Tawn Jarishedpur, District-Singhbhun
SASL . Petitioner
Versus
1 ol late Shiv Shankar singh . resident of Plot
Now vegr't Colony, Near Katol Road,
'pur, Maharashtra, . Opposite Parhes
heeds
CPrrough Vil}
CORAM: BON BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRER CHANTRASHEKHAR
Par the Pout fOTSY > Mr. Jai Shankar Topathi, Advocate
'ard nite Din Vos. Sahay, APP
th 4
For O.B Nod > Mrs, Rash Lal, Advacate
Order No. 09/Dated: 12" March, 2021
Moos rad
Phe oa
pidinant is agerieved of the judgment dated O7.08,2015
"ee
Appeal Na 293 of 2013.
rege'? Tey { reese
nassad iW &PHyunNal
° The cermmiamuant is mother-in-law of the accused on whose
compaint Complaint Case No. O/1 1834 af 2010 was instituted under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. By judement dated 03.10.2001
the Joarned Juchcial Magistrate, 1° Class, Jamshedpur convicted O.P
ad sentenced him to underes Bf far six months ander section 138 of
gohlable Instruments Act. The accused was further directed to nay fine af
Ra.23 lakhs to the complainant and in default of payment of the Sine arnount
io underga Sf for three manths.
% Pe Aguesywinisawi ft
I Phe coraplainant has
she gave a cheque af
coseee
20) lakhs In the name of ber daughter Laxmi Sin eh 'The amount was duly
credited in her account wih Axis Bank, Nagpur. The backgraund of the
OAS cerrist piace ten the
aioresdid payment to the
r of the camplainant was that she had
mistibuicd the sale proceed af the landed properties at Dharupur ar Tongs!
her daugiters. The other daughters accepted their share given to them by the
complainant but Laxmi Singh whe is wife of Sanjay Kumar Sink ah refused
i Was a paltry sum compared to the sale consideration, The
that on G2.16.2008 the accused came to her heruse
2
complainant has allegec
Ye
at Jamshedpur and obtained the stion of Rs.20 lakhs forcibly
from her, [appears that a partiti
af) was claimed to be
and the properties at Dharupur (Bikramga:
Na ygset wee gest
PHEePs Were
xs
part of his ancestral properties. The complainant and her five daug!
arrayed as defendants in @ subsequent sul fled by the agnates of the
omplainant and though they wanted to Ale written statement
af the instigation of the frusband (the accused) Laxmi! Singh declined to jou
2
esaid circumstances, the accused returned the
.
them. im the ator
aforesaid
amount and gave a cheque of Rs.20 lakhs dated 05.01.2010 drawn on Anis
pur in dayour of 'the complainant and the tid cheque was returmed
with endorsement i'siop payrnent.
at ed
4. After the enquiry, the leamed Judicial Magistiate, IS Class,
alee: Beha PS veeler wanige RO 2 Ri aeveadialkl:
usance of "the offene se under sectlan 138 of Negotiahle
Jamshedpur igok co
Instruments Aci and by an cr der dated O1.03.2011 subsiance of accusation
eal
CORD ACE
ed by the learned trial J tidge to the accused. D
ws
%
:
original © 5,01 .2010, cheque return memo dated 12.45.2010,
earbon ce notice. dated 17.05.2019, envelope withs refusal
endorsement and xerex capy of bank state
complainant. The complainant has exa amined he and Rajesh Singh as
singh and T. Venkat Rao,
witnesses, The accused-has emarnined Jai Pre
besides eaeng documentary evidence. The leamed trial Judge has held that
the ef tip
MAAK CHEQUE
aque ariouit withi
0.12 of the Judgement in Complaint ©
oe ELT OY oer feaeseryardt fevar f . ese andy we pyaes ce
fF 2013, the learned trial Judge has observed as
Erie PERUSE
were
D
a banker for payment of any amount of money fo ance her persan out of that
ncecunt for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any ¢ Jebt or other Hability.
'
reyy
Gi} the cheque ts return ed by the bank unpaid, either because af the amount
of money standing to the credit of thal account is insufficient to honour the
sheque or that d exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account
by an agreement made with that at bank,
A the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six. months
fem the date on which it is drawn or within the period af its validity,
at
pers
Gy) the payee or the holder is due course of the cheque, as the case may be,
makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a
~
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days 3! the
receipt of information by him from the bank regar 'ding the return of the
cheque as unpanl: and
fv) the drawer of such cheque tails to rake the payment ofthe said amount
af money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of
che cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said nouce
ler section 138 of Negotiable Instrumenis Act
~ PEM we ER ee ene .
i Phe ofience un
which is qwasi crmninal in nutare requires 15 days clear lime to drawer of
st ae
the cheque from the date of information, that is to say service or refusal of
i notice to make payment of the cheque amount. Cin this, an issue would
ai once arise whether legal notice was sent to the accused at the place he was
residing and whether refusal to accept legal notice was by the accused
Rimselfor on his behalf. From the materials on record, the leamed Appellate
Coun has found that the complainant has given two addresses of the
accused. The legal nouice was sent to "Sri Vinod Kumar Mutal, Managing
idress is given at the bottom of the
~~
rs
Director, C'o Sri Sanjay Singh". This a
At the same time name of the addressee
copy of legal notice vide Ext.
given on the envelope was "Sri Shee Shankar Singh, C/o Sri Sanjay Singh"
Neither Vinod Kumar Mittal nor Sheo Shankar Singh is drawer of the
heque or acoused in the complaint case and for this reason slone it must be
notice wus not properly addressed and sent ta the accused.
~
pre
During the trial, the accused has taken a specific stand that no isgal notice
--
was served upon him and in his examination under section 313 of the Code
eld th
By
ard
*
%
edchy
"ae
and
:
x
Shree ¢
(
