drp {1} Cri. Application No.4686/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4686 OF 2010 Jagannath Gopinath Ghule APPLICANT VERSUS Lahu Santram Mehetre RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the applicant Mr.G.R.Ingole, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th April 2011 PER COURT: 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2010, passed by JMFC, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-39 in STC No.3545/2007, the applicant has preferred the present application u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. drp {2} Cri. Application No.4686/2010 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary to the decision of this application, may briefly be stated thus- The present applicant has filed SCT No.3545/2007 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the respondent. It appears that the applicant had tendered an acknowledgment receipt in respect of service of legal notice on the respondent. It has revealed that the said acknowledgment receipt does not bear signature of the respondent to establish that the notice was served on the respondent. It further appears that thereafter evidence of the applicant-complainant was over and the respondent-original accused was also examined u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the matter was thereafter listed for arguments. It further appears that at that stage, an application came to be moved u/s 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant seeking leave to allow him to produce a postal acknowledgment receipt by which notice was served on the respondent. It also appears that after hearing both the sides, vide order impugned, the learned trial court has rejected the said application. drp {3} Cri. Application No.4686/2010 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Also perused the impugned order. At this juncture, it may be useful to refer the observations made in the impugned order in para II, which reads thus - “In Peacock Industries Ltd., Udaipur and others V/s Budhrani Finance Ltd., Bombay and another 2006 (5), Mh.L.J. 162, the Hon. Bombay High Court in para No.45 (0) following guidelines / directions are given. “Para No.45 (0)- The documents that may be relevant and necessary to be filed with the complaint under section 138 of the Act, would be as follows : dishonoured cheque/s; bank memo of drawer’s bank; debit advise of drawee’s bank; office copy of the notice endorsed by an advocate or a party as true copy with the acknowledgment receipt and / or postal certificate and / or documents evidencing despatch of notice; returned envelop,e if the notice was refused; reply, if any, to the notice by the accused; office copy of the bills or invoices, if any, with the endorsement of the advocate or the complainant as true copy; original agreement, or other document, if any, executed between the parties reflecting the transaction for which the cheuqe was issued; etc.” This Court, in the said judgment, has given a list of documents, which are relevant for the decision of complaint u/s 138 of the Act. It is specifically observed by this Court that the acknowledgment receipt is a relevant document, which required to be tendered to prove service of legal notice in the complaint u/s drp {4} Cri. Application No.4686/2010 138 of the NI Act. 5. By the application Exhibit-39, the applicant intends to produce postal receipt by which legal notice was sent and it is rightly held by the trial court that this is not a relevant document to prove service of notice on the respondent-accused. The legal proposition and inference about this document that the notice was sent and there is no presumption that the notice sent was received by the accused. In view of the legal proposition, I do not find any fault with the impugned order. In the premise, the application, being sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln4686-10