THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.19 of 2004 Judgment: Even though the matter is posted under the caption of ‘orders’, none appeared for the revision petitioner-accused (for short ‘the accused) nor any representation was made on his behalf. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of basing on the material available on record. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2002, dated 11.12.2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 181 of 1999. It is a case of dishonouring of a cheque bearing No. 717834 drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam for Rs. 25,000/-, which was marked as Ex.P2 before the trial Court. The 1st respondent-defacto complainant filed private complaint, basing on which, the case was registered. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the police filed charge sheet. The learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam tried the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 181 of 1999. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4 and Ex.X1 account copy. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked. On analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, whereas, aggrieved by that the accused carried the matter in appeal before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vsiakhapatnam, which was dismissed and consequently, the accused filed the present revision. In the memorandum of revision, it is pleaded that the corresponding statutory notice was not served upon him and that even in the statutory notice, there was no specific demand in respect of the amount covered by Ex.P1 cheque nor the amount due was mentioned even though it was necessary and hence the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are not established and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence in support of the claim of the complainant and whether the Courts below have properly examined the matter and whether it is necessary to interfere with the findings of the Courts below ? It is pertinent to note here that according to the accused, he issued a cheque for the purpose of security for renovation of plot to the complainant. However, he failed to place satisfactory evidence in that context and further when the accused issued the cheque, under Section 139 of the Act, it has to be presumed that it was so issued generally in respect of a legally enforceable debt. Further with regards to the issuing of statutory notice under Ex.P3, it is a notice issued to the address of the accused whereas Ex.P4 is the corresponding returned cover. But, before the Courts below, as seen from the record, no submission was made with regards to the notice. Further, when the notice was sent in the name of the accused, it has to be presumed that there was proper service of the same upon the accused and the accused should have placed sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption, but he failed to do so for which, adverse inference has to be drawn. The complainant placed sufficient evidence in order to uphold his claim. The Courts below properly examined the matter and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. _____________________________ (G. KRISHNA MONHAN REDDY, J) Date: 21.07.2011 pnb