Dismissed

Natesan Muthuramalinga M. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2013WP/534/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Writ Petition, the High Court examined a challenge to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners argued the complaint was premature due to insufficient time between notice service and the complaint. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing statutory presumptions of service and rejected the objection, dismissing the writ petiti

What did the court decide?

The objection regarding the premature nature of the complaint was held unsustainable; writ petition dismissed.

Natesan Muthuramalinga M. and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

1/3

wp534-13.sxw

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.534 OF 2013

¶7

1.Natesan Muthuramalinga M. & Ors. …Petitioners versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Nitin Dalvi i/b. Ms.Jayashri Manjarekar, for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for State-Respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.Pranav Badheka @ Mr.Dirajkumar Totala i/b. AZB & Partners, for Respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 7^th AUGUST, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard extensively.

¶14

The accused-petitioners are facing proceedings under Section 138 of

¶15

the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Counsel says, the complaint petition

¶16

is premature, not sustainable for want of 15 days period after service of notice upon the accused-petitioners.

¶17

The pleadings illustrate, notice was dispatched to the applicants and the company on 21.9.2011. Page 90 of the compilation illustrates that notice was accepted by acknowledgement dated 25.9.2011 by some Directors including the Company. At page 95, the notice is said to have been served / accepted by

2/3

wp534-13.sxw

Pvr

accused no.2 on 11.10.2011. This is precisely based on blurred rubber stamps of postal department.

¶22

Another limb of submissions is, there is no mention of specific date of service in the verification statement.

¶23

The learned Counsel for complainant points out that in first paragraph of the verification, indeed, there is reference of service of notice on 24.9.2011. He points that the reference of reply dated 11.10.2011 in paragraph 7 needs to be segregated from so called acknowledgement. Such reply from all the accused-applicants indicate that they confirmed having received letter (Statutory notice) dated 21.9.2011 and it was informed that they will get back to the subject matter within 10 days.

¶24

The legal position is explained by Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007 All M.R. (Cri) 2044)”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court endorsed views expressed in the matter of “D. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda Belliappa” and “K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999 (4) All MR 452)”. In paragraph 17, it has been observed as under:-

¶25

“17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of

3/3

wp534-13.sxw

Pvr

the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.”

¶30

In the light of above legal position, the objection is unsustainable. Writ petition dismissed.

Natesan Muthuramalinga M. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natesan Muthuramalinga M. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadasaheb Ramchandra Patil Vs Babaso Ganpati Chaugule and Ors.

Sada Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Keshubhai Udhas and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M. a. Khairabadi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anandraj Jauanal Nadar Vs Gopal Raj Nadar and Ors.

Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke Vs Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan and Anr.