IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R. No.62 of 2007 Judgement reserved on: 27.2.2008 Date of decision: 29.2.2008 Subash Sahni …….Petitioner Vs. M/s. Auro Spinning Mills …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The record of the case has been received, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,the revision has been finally heard. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.4.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Cr. A. No.5NL/10 of 2006/05 confirming the conviction of petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short Act) recorded by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 30.7.2005/3.8.2005 in Criminal Complaint No.47/3 of 199. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… 3. The facts in brief are that petitioner in the years 1997-98 was the managing director of M/s. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Company based at Bhiwani in Haryana. It had business transactions with complainant M/s. Auro Spining Mills, a company based at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant company had supplied yarn to the company of the petitioner and petitioner allegedly issued five cheques of different amounts on different dates towards the payment of the material supplied by the complainant company. The cheques issued by the petitioner were presented by the complainant company in State Bank of Patiala, however, those were bounced and M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparel Ltd. was accordingly informed about the dis-honouring of these cheques. On receipt of information from the bank a composite notice dated 17.1.1998 was served on petitioner and others requesting to make the payment. This notice was sent through courier as well as through registered post and was duly served on the petitioner and other directors of the company . The petitioner and M/s. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. failed to pay the amount and accordingly a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and others. One accused Ram Lal Sahni died during the pendency of the complaint and proceedings against him abated, proceedings against accused other then the petitioner and company were quashed by this Court and only two accused namely petitioner and company remained to face the trial. 4. The trial Court after conclusion of the evidence found both the company and the petitioner guilty of the offence under …3… Section 138 of the Act and convicted them on 30.7.2005 and on 3.8.2005 sentenced the company to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.35,42,000/- , the petitioner was also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentence which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 27.4.2007, hence this revision. 5. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner on two counts, firstly, that the notice issued to the petitioner and others was composite notice covering different cheques and therefore, it was no notice in law and prosecution, conviction and sentence of the petitioner for want of valid and legal notice is not sustainable, secondly, the notice has not been served on the petitioner and for that reason also the prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner was served on him and the composite notice is valid, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. 6. It has not been denied that the cheques Ex.CW-1/J-15 to Ex.CW-1/J-19 were issued on different dates in the year 1997 by the petitioner which were bounced on presentation. All cheques except cheque Ex.CW-1/J-15 were presented within six months but those …4… were bounced. The complainant company issued notice Ex,CW-1/H on 17.1.1998 to the accused company as well as petitioner and others to pay the amounts of dis-honoured cheques. It has not been disputed the notice was issued within the statutory period of 15 days ( as it then was ) after receipt of information from the bank of bouncing of cheques. The question whether composite notice regarding more then one cheque and issued to different persons is valid in law. This point is now no more in res integra in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Indira vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 300. In para -11 of the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “………In a given case if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was a consolidated notice, and/or that further demands in addition to the statutorily envisaged demand were also found to have been made may not invalidate the same” In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the consolidated notice was lacking relevant information. The purpose of the notice is to inform the noticee that the cheque issued by him has bounced on presentation and noticee is given time to make payment of cheque within statutory period. The notice has not been assailed that statutory period for issuing notice was lacking. The perusal of the notice Ex.CW-1/H would show that it …5… was issued to Company, Chairman, Managing Director and Directors of Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. wherein demand was made for payment of the bounced cheques from the noticees. The notice was not issued to any stranger. No other amount or liability was included in the notice except for the amount of bounced cheques, therefore, it cannot be said that notice dated 17.1.1998 Ex.CW-1/H in any manner was not in conformity with law. 7. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the notice was not served on the petitioner and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for want of notice is illegal. It has come in evidence that notice Ex.CW-1/H was sent through postal receipts Ex.CW-1/J-11, Ex.CW-1/J-12 and their acknowledgment are Ex.CW- 1/J-13, Ex.CW-1/J-14. The postal receipt pertaining to petitioner is CW-1/J-11 and acknowledgment of petitioner is Ex.CW-1/J-13. The perusal of acknowledgement Ex.CW-1/J-13 would show that it bears the seal of Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and was received on 27.1.1998. It has been submitted that acknowledgementEx.CW-1/J- 13 does not bear the signature of petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice was delivered to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the address given on acknowledgement is not his correct address. It has also not been submitted that the person who received the notice and issued the acknowledgement was not the representative of the company and the petitioner to receive the letters of the company and the petitioner. It is common knowledge that in corporate sector the letters and other dak is received at specified place in corporate office. It cannot be said on …6… the basis of material on record that notice Ex.CW-1/H was not served on petitioner. The two Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the notice was served on petitioner raising the demand of payment of the bounced cheques . This is a finding of fact and based upon appreciation of the evidence. The two Courts below have drawn proper inference from the material on record. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of above discussion, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. February 29, 2008 (sks)