1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.521 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.522 OF 2007 Venus Life Marketing India Ltd. through Chairman and Managing Director Santosh Shashikant Dabholkar Applicant versus Tukaram Pandurang Lot and another Respondents Tejesh Dande for applicant. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PC :- 1. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the last date. The order was not passed to enable the learned counsel for the applicant to take instructions. 2. By this criminal revision application the challenge is to an order of conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1881"). The order of conviction has been confirmed by the Sessions Court. 2 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the averments made in the complaint, notes of evidence and findings recorded by the Courts below. 4. The case made out in the complaint subject matter of criminal revision application no.521 of 2007 is that the first respondent after his retirement from the Government service had invested a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh with the first applicant out of his retirement benefits. The maturity amount is stated to be Rs.1.11 lakh. A cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of the first respondent-complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter a notice was issued and the complaint was filed. 5. As far as Criminal Revision Application No.521 of 2007 is concerned, the complaint is filed by the same complainant stating that he had invested a sum of Rs.6.60 lakhs with the applicant out of the retirement benefits received by him. A cheque was issued by the applicant for the said amount but it was dishonoured and thereafter the complaint was filed. 6. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the notice of demand which is the condition precedent for filing a complaint, was not served to the applicant as it was sent at an incorrect address. It is submitted that the notice was returned with an endorsement 3 "not found". He submitted that as the service of notice itself is not established, the applicant was entitled to an order of acquittal. He submitted that there are no specific averments made against the applicant who is the Chairman of the company in terms of section 141 of the said Act of 1881. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are perverse and the applicant is entitled to an order of acquittal. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgements and orders. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be stated here that the notice of demand was addressed by the first respondent- complainant to the applicant at the address which is disclosed as address of the applicant in the criminal appeal filed by the applicant and even in these two criminal revision applications. In paragraph 18 of the judgement of the Sessions Court this aspect has been considered. The learned Judge has referred to letter at Exhibit-32 issued by the applicant which showed the same address of the applicant on which the notice was issued. After referring to the other documents, the learned Judge noted that from time to time the applicant company has disclosed different addresses. The learned Judge recorded a finding that the address on which the notice was dispatched was the address informed to the share holders by the first applicant. It is pointed out that in letter dated 9th July 2003 the same address of the applicant company was mentioned by the applicants and on the same address the notice was dispatched on 24th October 2003. It is very difficult to find fault with the finding recorded by 4 the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on the issue of service of notice. 8. The presumption under section 139 of the said Act of 1881 was available and it was for the applicant to rebut the said presumption. Apart from the fact that the applicant has not adduced any evidence, there is no material on record to show that the presumption stands rebutted. The Courts below have found that the said presumption has not been rebutted by the applicant. In limited revisional jurisdiction, evidence cannot be re- appreciated and the impugned orders cannot be disturbed unless the same are shown to be perverse or illegal. I find no error in the impugned order of conviction. There is no merit in the criminal revision applications and the same are dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)