THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 of 2006 BETWEEEN: S.Madhava Reddy … Appellant AND The State of A.P. rep. by its P.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The complainant is the appellant. He questions acquittal recorded by the lower Court against the accused/respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The accused was acquitted by the lower Court on two grounds namely (a) that there is correction in the return endorsement of the banker and (b) that there is no valid service of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act. 2. The lower Court pointed out that in Ex.P2 – Return memo of the banker informing dishonour of the cheque, the date is mentioned as 10.07.2000 by way of rubber stamp. Subsequently, it was corrected as 10.08.2000 and there is signature of one person. On back of Ex.P2, the Bank Manager signed as if the intimation was posted on 10.08.2000. There is difference in signatures found on back of Ex.P1 and under correction of date in the rubber stamp. The same could not be explained by the complainant by examining any person from the Bank. In the absence of banker’s evidence as to exact date of return of the dishonoured cheque, the lower Court did not place reliance on the corrected date. Under Section 146 of the Act, there is presumption as to dishonour of the cheque by production of banker’s slip or memo. The said presumption does not further extend to the date mentioned on the bankers slip, in case there is a doubtful correction therein. 3. If return of the cheque was on 10.07.2000, a statutory notice issued under Section 138(b) of the Act as per Ex.P3 dated 21.08.2000, is beyond the prescribed period. Further, Ex.P3 notice was issued to only one address of the accused and it was returned as per Ex.P4. In the complaint, the complainant gave two addresses for the accused and took two sets of summons to the accused to both the addresses. Prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant did not send the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act to both the known addresses of the accused. Therefore, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no proper service of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act coupled with sending of the said notice beyond the prescribed period from the date of return memo of the banker of the dishonoured cheque. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:28.10.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 of 2006 Dt:28.10.2011 ysk