Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M. Rajender Vs. State of A.P. and Another

M. Rajender vs State of A.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 27, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/437456

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. P No. 4907 of 1998
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - notice of dishonour - Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - subject matter of complaint is cheque issued by firm in which accused is partner - notice under Section 138 for dishonour of cheque issued to firm but not to accused partner - held, no necessity of giving separate notice to a...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 141

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Rajender

Advocate Mrs. C. Jayashree Sarathy, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and Another

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 141
Reported In
1999(4)ALD40; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)326; 1999(1)ALT777; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)101

Excerpt

criminal - notice of dishonour - sections 138 and 141 of negotiable instruments act, 1881 - subject matter of complaint is cheque issued by firm in which accused is partner - notice under section 138 for dishonour of cheque issued to firm but not to accused partner - held, no necessity of giving separate notice to accused partner and provisions of section 138 are complied with. - order1. heard the parties. it is the case of the petitioner that he is a partner of a firm and the complaint itself does not disclose that any notice was given to him before the proceedings were started against him under section 138 of negotiable instruments act. essentially, it is a question of fact whether a notice was served on the accused or not. even otherwise, if it is presumed that no notice had been given to the present petitioner who is accused no.2 and only a notice had been given to the firm of which admittedly he is a partner, i am of the view that was sufficient compliance of section 138 of negotiable instruments act. the accused who is the petitioner before this court is a partner of firm which issued the cheque which is subject matter of the complaint and a notice was given to the firm under section 138 of the act. the present petilioner who is accused no.2 is only arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of section 141 of the negotiable instruments act and in my view notice to the company was sufficient compliance of section 138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused. with these observations, i do not find any merit in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed. stay has been granted by ihis court and a vacate stay application has been filed, but since the matter is short, after hearing the parties, the petition itself is decided.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a partner of a firm and the complaint itself does not disclose that any notice was given to him before the proceedings were started against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Essentially, it is a question of fact whether a notice was served on the accused or not. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that no notice had been given to the present petitioner who is accused No.2 and only a notice had been given to the firm of which admittedly he is a partner, I am of the view that was sufficient compliance of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused who is the petitioner before this Court is a partner of firm which issued the cheque which is subject matter of the complaint and a notice was given to the firm under Section 138 of the Act. The present petilioner who is accused No.2 is only arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in my view notice to the Company was sufficient compliance of Section 138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused. With these observations, I do not find any merit in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Stay has been granted by Ihis Court and a vacate stay application has been filed, but since the matter is short, after hearing the parties, the petition itself is decided.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial