M/S. India Precision and Bearing Manufactures Ltd. vs A.P.A. Enterprises (P) Ltd.

A. Ramamurthi, J.—Heard The complainant in C.C. 3357/99 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore has preferred the

revision aggrieved against the order dt. 9.4.99 dismissing the complaint u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The case in brief is as follows The sworn statement of the complainant''s representative was recorded. The 2nd and 3rd accused are Directors

of the first accused. The complainant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint

of the ground that the complaint was not immediately filed after return of the first notice dt 1.11.98. The second notice was issued on 7.11.98 and

the same was also returned ""unserved The third notice was issued through courier service on 30.11.98 and the same was served on 5.12.98. Now

the complaint has been filed on 7.1.99 before the expiry of 30 days from 21.12.98

Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the order passed by the trial court is not proper and correct. After receipt of the notice

within the period allowed under law the complaint has been filed The learned Magistrate relied upon certain rulings and came to the conclusion that

first notice should be deemed to have been served on him.

No doubt, in the present case, three notices were issued, but however, the first notice as well as the second notice were returned unserved"" and

it is not known whether the notices were sent to the correct address. Only if the notices were sent to the correct address and even then returned,

then under law it can be presumed that notices already sent were sufficient. Only in the course of trial, it can be found out whether the notices were

sent to the correct address and returned or they were sent to improper address and thereafter returned. Now the complainant relying upon the

third notice and having served the same, has filed this complaint within the period allowed under law. Now the dismissal of the complaint u/s 203

Cr.P.C. is not proper and correct. The matter should have been left open to be decided in the course of the trial because it requires evidence.

Hence, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside

For the reason staled above the revision is allowed and the order passed by the trial court dated 9.4.99 in C.C.No.3357/99 is set aside and the

trial court is directed to restore C.C.No.3357/99 to its file and dispose the same is accordance with law.