Revising against a conviction under Section 138 NI Act due to alleged defective statutory notice where a stranger signed the acknowledgement card. The High Court dismissed the revision dating the service justified under Section 27 General Clauses Act.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed in limine without admitting for hearing or deciding merits of notice validity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.426 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 267/2017 DATED 24-01-2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 79/2014 DATED 10-02-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
AKHIL, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.MUKUNDAN, THEKKE VANNANDIYIL HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.EDACHERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 101.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SRI.A.S.BENOY
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 RAJAN K., AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KANARAN, KATTIL HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.EDACHERI,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE673 101.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP. C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.426 OF 2019
O R D E R
Dated this the 5th day of September 2019
The revision petition is directed against the judgment
passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vadakara as modified by judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court') in a prosecution launched under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act')
3
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.426 OF 2019
revision petition for hearing on admission.
4
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.426 OF 2019
extracted hereunder:
“xx xx xx He argued that the signature in Ext.P6 acknowledgement card is that of a stranger, inserted by the complainant and therefore, the complainant has failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving the notice on the accused. But, I am afraid and I am not in a position to subscribe to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, for reasons more than one. First of all, there is no case for the accused that Ext.P4 notice has not been sent in the correct address of the accused. If that be so, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act comes into force and it can be deemed that Ext.P4 notice has been duly served on the accused. Then the burden will lie upon the accused to show that he has not received Ext.P4 notice. But in order to discharge the said burden, the accused has not adduced any evidence. Xx xx xx.”
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.426 OF 2019
5
circumstances of the case on hand. The appellate court has correctly found so in the impugned judgment. Other tenable arguments having not been advanced by the learned counsel, the revision is not liable to be admitted.
In the result, the Crl.R.P. is dismissed in limine .
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
ttb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 was properly served when an unauthorized person signed the acknowledgement card.
Whether Section 27 of the General Clauses Act presumes service of notice was sent to the correct address.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
AKHIL
STATE OF KERALA
RAJAN K.
MARY JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
