~ Gmmnsxcm r :1>mm::ox~r~ ‘No , M Sm Sin £000 lg Bench (Jiminal) gin/I w my!I/IOII/I/I/m/g 0 00881 P.R. Tutakne' ‘ aged abont 5o yrs}? S/o Ramkrishna Tutalme, ?rofession - Professor aft Govti; Model Science Comege, Raipur (M .P.) Resident of [#36, Sa’mta Colonyfaipur y.sr.A2ad Chawk,'rah.& Disttz. Raipur (MJR) - c . A? LICANT REVISIGNER V e‘rsu‘s gén Singh Chandrakar, aged out 50 yrs” Propr ietor, Chandrakar Pustak Bhandar, i Visekanand Ashram Compl ex,’Raipur, G.Ei.R0ad, P.0 .Vivekanand Ashram, ?.S.Azad Chowk, Tam & Distt". Raipur (NLP .) . NON .Ayyggggw'r’ cmmAL REVIsxgN U/s - 39,7 > 6R.?.C. B e eing aggrieved px th 1 97% . ] / / XI-HC—22 32a arm, may, WW3? mm / Cr.R.‘No;.45O/'g$v’9 WW? $5$W , ‘a’i 200 - W ér' W‘ 411% wmmkra 10-4-2003» Being aggrieved by theLorder where-under the revisional Court has reject trial Court under which obj relating to non-service of rejected.‘ Submisgion o£ the ‘lea rned counsel for the records. it would clearly applicant is that £rom the appear that the post‘man'went to the address oi the applicant ‘ instead of the service and as such, under the law a preemption/must. be raised that the non-applicant was legally siervedo that the report on the enve was ~not available , whether : or avoided the service, ’ou b‘e£ore the trial Court, be£ \ cognizance. in ‘abs’en’ce cf notices; were teMered or: w the accused, requirements c I Negotiable Instruments Act, Mow é‘Shri B.N .Pandey,learrled coehsel for” the applicant. p‘ Heard . non-applicant, but the non- rreceiving notices, avoided \ revisicnal ed the oréer passed by the action of the accused- the registered notices, wae it is to be seen lope is that the addressee the non—applicant manipulatea 1 ght to/have been proved :ore the Court (gyt‘eke positive proof that the ere oeemingly served upon f Section 138—B of the cannot be said to be Wee—11mm [