1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2008 (SUSHILKUMAR NAVALKISHORE MURARKA VS. MOHD. ISARUL HAQ ABDUL MANNAN & OTHERS. ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri U.N.Vyas, Advocate for applicant. Shri P.D.Kothari, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2009. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class 7th Court, Akola in a case concerning for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that notice, which was mandatorily required to be issued under clause (b) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was not served upon the accused. 2. When the application for leave to file appeal came up before this Court on 29th July, 2008 it was directed that the appeal would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission-hearing and notice was accordingly issued to 2 respondent No.1/ original accused. He was duly served but is absent. 3. I have heard Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Even if it is presumed, for a while, that notice, as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was not served upon the accused, upon dishonour of the cheque, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & anr., reported at 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 44, it was for the accused to comply with the demand after summons of the case was served upon him. The object of issuing notice was to enable the drawer of the cheque to comply with the requirement to pay the amount under the cheque, which was dishonoured, within fifteen days of his receiving demand notice and if notice was not received from the date of receipt of summons which would amount to sufficient notice of the case. The learned trial Magistrate should not have been unduly concerned with failure to serve the notice. 3 5. In view of this, leave granted. Appeal is admitted and heard finally. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to enable the accused to comply with the requirement, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, failing which the learned trial Magistrate shall proceed to reappreciate the evidence and decide the case on merits. 6. The learned trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the case within a period of six months from receipt of R & P by his Court. JUDGE RR.