AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sashikanta Mishra, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. M. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party.
It is contended by Mr. Acharya that the complaint under Section
138 of NI Act is not maintainable in the eye of law on the ground of delay as also for non-service of demand notice on the accused.
On the other hand, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the demand notice was issued to the accused by Registered post with A.D. but the same was returned by the post office with an endorsement that the addressee is absent in the village. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint and summons was issued. Pursuant to which, the accused entered appearance and has also been contesting the case.
Since the trial has already commenced with evidence from the side of the complainant already concluded and the matter is said to be posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all such grounds as raised before this Court at the time of trial/arguments, which shall be considered by the Court below in accordance with law.
……………………………