V. Venugopal Vs. State of A.P. and Another

V. Venugopal vs State of A.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jul 21, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/439078

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/439078
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Vaman Rao, J.
Decided On: Jul 21, 1999
Case Number: Crl. P No. 3475 of 1999
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal - bouncing of cheque - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - petitioner accused of criminal case filed an application for quashing Order of Munsif Magistrate - contended no notice was duly received by him regarding dishonour of cheque - Court found notice was served to appellant but not claimed ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V. Venugopal

Advocate Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and Another

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
Reported In: 1999(4)ALD449; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)27; [2000]100CompCas462(AP)

Excerpt

criminal - bouncing of cheque - section 138 of negotiable instruments act, 1881 - petitioner accused of criminal case filed an application for quashing order of munsif magistrate - contended no notice was duly received by him regarding dishonour of cheque - court found notice was served to appellant but not claimed and returned back to sender - under circumstances contention advanced by appellant not sustainable - held, order cannot be quashed. - .....no prosecution can lie against the accused on the ground that the cheque issued by him bounced.4. the contention in this case is that in view of the postal endorsement on the notice sent by the complainant, it is quite obvious that the notice was not received by the petitioner-accused herein. no such presumption could arise from the postal endorsement referred to. the fact remains that a notice was infact addressed to the petitioner herein by registered post. the question as to under what circumstances the notice was returned and as to what is the purport of the endorsement made on the letter are questions of facts which have to be gone into during the trial. one of the meanings of the endorsement could be that when the letter was tendered to the petitioner it was not accepted, which may amount to refusal to receive the letter. however, it is possible that the letter might have been tendered to a wrong person, who might have refused to claim it as not being addressed to him. whether the return of the postal cover was for either of these reasons is a matter of enquiry and a question of fact.5. under these circumstances, as (his is the only ground on which the quashing of proceedings is sought, it must be held that the requirements under section 482 cr.pc for quashing the proceedings have not been made out. the learned counsel for the petitioner further represents that for the appearance of the petitioner nbw has been issued. it is pleaded that the petitioner himself will appear before the lower court on the due date of hearing. under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the lower court within one week from the date of this order and on such appearance the nbw issued against him shall be recalled and he will be bound over to attend the court on the next date of hearing.6. with this direction, this petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.110/98 on the file of the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in which the petitioner herein is the accused.

2. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in respect of a handloan obtained by the accused he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2 herein which bounced. A notice as per the complainant has been sent to the accused which was returned with a postal endorsement as 'not claimed returned to the sender.'

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless a notice demanding the amount covered by the cheque bounced is sent to the accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque, no Prosecution can lie against the accused on the ground that the cheque issued by him bounced.

4. The contention in this case is that in view of the postal endorsement on the notice sent by the complainant, it is quite obvious that the notice was not received by the petitioner-accused herein. No such presumption could arise from the postal endorsement referred to. The fact remains that a notice was infact addressed to the petitioner herein by registered post. The question as to under what circumstances the notice was returned and as to what is the purport of the endorsement made on the letter are questions of facts which have to be gone into during the trial. One of the meanings of the endorsement could be that when the letter was tendered to the petitioner it was not accepted, which may amount to refusal to receive the letter. However, it is possible that the letter might have been tendered to a wrong person, who might have refused to claim it as not being addressed to him. Whether the return of the postal cover was for either of these reasons is a matter of enquiry and a question of fact.

5. Under these circumstances, as (his is the only ground on which the quashing of proceedings is sought, it must be held that the requirements under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings have not been made out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further represents that for the appearance of the petitioner NBW has been issued. It is pleaded that the petitioner himself will appear before the lower Court on the due date of hearing. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the lower Court within one week from the date of this order and on such appearance the NBW issued against him shall be recalled and he will be bound over to attend the Court on the next date of hearing.

6. With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties V. Venugopal vs State of A.P. and Another Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Vaman Rao, J. Acts & Sections Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Code of Crim...

Criminal