Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 Date of decision : 22.8.2008 Narinder Kumar .....Appellant Versus Smt. Gurdeep Kaur ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. The appellant/complainant launched a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused on the allegations that a cheque issued by the latter in lieu of a liability bounced on account of insufficiency of funds and the respondent did not pay up even after the statutory notice had been delivered to her by post. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a finding that appellant/complainant had not been able to prove that he was having any dealings with respondent/accused. (“In the present case as stated above the complainant has not produced any witness to prove that the goods were ever supplied to the accused. No document/bill has been produced and proved by the complainant for the supply of the goods to the accused. Moreover, the complainant is not himself Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -2- **** sure whether he was having dealings with the accused or not. This fact stands established from the cross-examination of Narinder Kumar complainant. Narinder Kumar complainant appearing as CW1 in his cross-examination has stated that Gurdeep Kaur is dealing in Iron business, In the very next line he has shown his ignorance regarding the fact whether Gurdeep Kaur is doing any business or not and there after he has specifically stated that no dealing ever took place with Gurdeep Kaur.”) Apart therefrom, learned Trial Judge also noticed that the appellant/complainant had not been able to prove that the statutory notice Ex. C4 had been addressed to the respondent/accused at her correct address. (“The next contention raised by accused that no notice was ever served upon her and she has never received any notice. However, the contention of complainant is that legal notice Ex. C4 was issued to the accused which was received back unserved, CW1 Narinder Kumar complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that Gurdeep Kaur is resident of House NO. 225. He has further admitted that notice which was sent to the accused wasw addressed as House No. 255,100 Ft. Road. Perusal of the evidence Ex. C6 containing the notice which was served upon the accused by the complaint shows that the notice was sent to Gurmeet kaur w/o Harminder Singh r/o 255,100 feet Road, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar was received back unserved. This fact and admission of the complainant clearly shows that the notice was not served at the correct address of accused. As Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -3- **** such no presumption can be drawn that the accused was having the notice regarding the dishonour of cheque and that the complainant has demanded the amount. Reliance can be placed on Suresh Kumar Vs. Sasi 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 531 wherein it has been held that when the notice is returned as unclaimed no presumption of service is available if notice is not addressed to the correct address.” The view taken by the learned Trial Magistrate appears to be in order. It does not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. There is nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Magistrate. Dismissed. August 22, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.712-MA of 2006 -4- ****