Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 721 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - interpolation/manipulation in the cheque - Service of notice - HELD THAT:- Firstly with regard to interpolation in the cheque Ex. P.2, it is to be stated that if the judgment of the trial Court is perused, it is found that the learned Magistrate has considered this aspect of the matter. What is held is that while cross-examining P.W.1, a suggestion was given that figure '11' was inserted behind number '5' and that P.W.1 denied that suggestion. Except this suggestion, there is nothing on record to show that the cheque was issued for ₹ 5,000/-. It is further observed that if according to the petitioner, the respondent manipulated the cheque, he could have given an intimation to bank to stop payment - Now if Ex. P.2 is perused, a sum of ₹ 1,15,000/- is written both in words and figures. The petitioner admits the signature on the cheque and does not dispute the sum written in words. But the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque was filled up by somebody else. This argument is difficult to be accepted, because once the petitioner admits his signature on the cheque, it does not matter if the cheque is filled up by somebody else. Service of notice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner does not dispute the address written on the postal cover. Postal acknowledgment contains signature in Hindi. If the petitioner does not dispute the address and if the postal acknowledgment was returned after due service, it is deemed that the petitioner received the notice. Moreover as has been argued by Sri Bryen Stienberg, it is held by the Supreme Court in the case of CC. ALAVI HAJI VERSUS PALAPETTY MUHAMMED [2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT] that once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. It is held that within 15 days of the receipt of summons from the Court, the accused can make payment and insist on rejection of complaint in case he disputes the service of demand notice. In this revision petition there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence. The trial Court as also the appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence - there are no infirmity in the findings given by both the Courts below - this revision petition fails and it is dismissed.
|