AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajai Lamba, J.—The petitioner herein filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No. 1. Contention in brief is that on considering the preliminary evidence and the contents of the complaint, the respondent was summoned. Subsequently, an application was filed by the accused for review of the Court order. The application has been allowed vide Order dated 17.12.2003 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sonepat. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The revision has also been dismissed.
The controversy raised before the Revisional Court was that it cannot be said that no notice had been sent.
I have gone through the impugned order. In Para 8 of the impugned order, the Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the notice was valid in view of law as cited in the said para. In Para 9, however, it has been stated that the said notice had not been sent. The postal receipt on the file refers to some Delhi address. The address on the postal receipt is incomplete and therefore, the main ingredient as required under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not satisfied and notice was not sent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order of summoning passed by the Trial Court. In Para 3 of the order, the following has been recorded:-