Citation : 2002 Local Law (CG) 71
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that refusal to accept a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act amounts to valid service. Justice Fakhruddin delivered the ruling while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which upheld a magistrate’s decision to proceed with a cheque dishonour case.
The applicant, accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds, argued that the complaint was invalid because the notice of demand was never served on him. The record showed that the notice sent by the complainant had been returned marked “refused.” Both the trial and revisional courts found this refusal sufficient to establish service of notice.
In support of his argument, the applicant sought discharge on the ground that service of notice is a prerequisite for maintaining a complaint under Section 138. The magistrate rejected the plea, holding that the issue could only be determined after recording evidence. The Sessions Court later affirmed this view.
Justice Fakhruddin, while reviewing the case, cited the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999), which held that once a payee dispatches a notice to the correct address, his statutory obligation is complete. The Court emphasized that allowing accused persons to evade notices by deliberate refusal would defeat the purpose of the law.
The High Court also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Anil Kumar Haritwal v. Sant Prakash Gupta (2001), which advocated a liberal interpretation of Section 138 to protect honest payees from dishonest drawers. The court observed that in modern commerce, cheque transactions are routine, and legal provisions must be interpreted to preserve the integrity of such transactions.
Finding no illegality in the orders of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and related interlocutory applications. The ruling reinforces the principle that deliberate refusal to accept a legal notice cannot shield an accused from prosecution in cheque dishonour cases.
Case Details : Misc. Criminal Case No. 1985/2002, Arvind Bhai Selarka vs. Dilip Gogad and Ors. (20.11.2002)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shailesh Ahuja, Adv. For State: Singhai, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138
Cases Referred:
Ashok Kumar Yashwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhav Rao Nighojakar and Anr., 2001 Cr.LJ 1674; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 510; Anil Kumar Haritwal and Anr. v. Sant Prakash Gupta, 2001(3) M.P.H.T. 325, 2001(2) MPLJ Page 488
======
आपराधिक मामला – कार्यवाही निरस्त करने का अनुरोध – धारा 138, परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम (Negotiable Instruments Act) के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध – धारा 482, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (Cr.P.C.) के तहत पुनरीक्षण याचिका दायर – निर्णय:
उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा K. Bhaskaran के मामले में दिए गए निर्णय से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम की धारा 138 का उद्देश्य उस व्यक्ति के हितों की रक्षा करना है, जिसे भुगतान प्राप्त न होने से हानि हुई है। इसलिए, इस प्रावधान की व्याख्या उदार रूप से की जानी चाहिए ताकि वास्तविक पीड़ित को न्याय मिल सके।
न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि ऐसी व्याख्या नहीं अपनाई जानी चाहिए जो किसी बेईमान व्यक्ति को लाभ पहुंचाए और ईमानदार प्राप्तकर्ता के अधिकारों को हानि पहुंचाए, क्योंकि ऐसा करने से विधायी उद्देश्य ही विफल हो जाएगा।
न्यायालय ने पाया कि ट्रायल कोर्ट द्वारा पारित आदेश में कोई अवैधता नहीं है। अतः याचिका निरस्त की जाती है। निर्णय: याचिका खारिज।
