1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 135 of 2011 Roshan v M/s Taori Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for applicant Mr D.N. Dani, Advocate for respondent Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 19th July 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent herein filed criminal complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant averred in the complaint that in discharge of outstanding liability, present applicant issued cheque no. 957844 dated 25.8.2008 drawn upon Corporation Bank, Nagpur Branch, Nagpur for Rs. 3,92,082/- which was returned by his bankers for the reason “funds insufficient”. Legal notice was issued and sent on both residential and shop address to the accused, but it was returned with the postal remarks “incomplete address” and “left” respectively. After statutory period was over, complaint came to be filed. Learned Magistrate after recording verification statement issued process vide order dated 1.4.2009. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, applicant filed revision application. However, learned Adhoc District Judge-1, 2 Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2010 dismissed the revision application. Applicant has thus approached this Court via the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the notice sent on the residential address was returned with the postal remarks “incomplete address” and the one which was sent on shop address was returned with postal remarks “left”. According to him, there was no service of notice on the applicant in the eye of law. He contends that applicant did not refuse the service of legal notice. He further contends that learned Magistrate and the revisional court should have appreciated that the complaint was even otherwise time-barred. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and canvassed that all contentions are open for the accused to raise in the trial. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Contention of the counsel for applicant that complaint was barred by limitation, cannot be accepted because of clear averments in the complaint that complaint is well within time. Furthermore, dispatch of notice on the last known address of the addressee may be a “good” service in law. Learned revisional court has rightly observed that upon receipt of summons of the complaint case, the applicant did not raise objection regarding non-service of notice. The applicant can very well raise all his defences on merits at the time of trial. 5. In view of the above, order of issuance of process and 3 the one passed by the revisional court cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE joshi