THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.253 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner-complainant has filed this revision questioning judgment dated 1.10.2003 in C.C.No.262 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent-accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him on 19.9.1998 at Kandukur for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, and thereafter, on repeated demands, the respondent-accused issued a cheque bearing No.397881, dated 9.2.2001 for Rs.24,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kandukur Branch, Prakasam District and when presented, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds in the respondent’s account. Then, the complainant issued a registered notice but it was returned with false endorsement that he was not in the village for a week. Hence, the complaint is filed. The judgment impugned reads as follows: “Complainant and accused are absent. There is no representation for complainant. Correct address of the accused is not furnished. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.” Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that that the Court below dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration the circumstances prevailed on that day, that the complainant had given correct address of the accused, that if the registered notice was returned unserved, the Court should have taken further steps to serve the notice and therefore, the complaint may be restored to file. It is clear that the legal notice issued by the complainant prior to the filing of the complaint was not served. As per the endorsement on the cover admittedly it was returned as the respondent-accused was absent. The impugned order goes to show that the complainant did not furnish the correct address of the accused. It would mean that the summons sent to the accused by the Court below returned as could not be served. So, the Court below came to conclusion that the address furnished by the complainant was incorrect. If the notice was refused by the addressee, it may be presumed to have been served. But where the notice could not be served on the addressee for the other reason of his non-availability at the time of delivery etc., taking it as served properly would completely defeat the very purpose of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in this regard. Further, it is apparent that on 21.6.2004, notice in this revision was sent to the Court below for causing service on the respondent - accused. The Court below submitted unserved notice on 13.7.2004 stating that the notice was sent to the addressee but it was reported that he was transferred to Muppavaram village and hence, the notice was forwarded to the S.H.O, Kondapi Police Station, in which jurisdiction Muppavaram village is situated, but it was reported that from 7.11.2002 onwards, the respondent-accused abstained from attending his duty. Apart from that, the petitioner-complainant kept quiet for many years and he did not take any steps to secure the address of the respondent-accused and he also did not give any reasons for his absence on the date of dismissal of the complaint. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the Crl. Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:28.4.2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.253 of 2004 Date: 28.4.2011