Banda Krishna Reddy, v. P. Ekamber Rao

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.719 OF 2017 ORDER:

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.568 of 2012 which is outcome of a private complaint of revision respondent No.1/ defacto-complainant for the offence u/ sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short, 'the Act') and the same from the accrual of the cause of action filed and taken cognizance and on contest from the evidence of the parties with reference to documents, the trial Court convicted the accused by judgment dated 05.06.2014. By impugning the same, the revision petitioner/ accused maintained the Crl.A.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. It is pending the appeal against the trial Court's conviction judgment, he filed Crl.M.P.No.473 of 2016 u/ sec. 391 Cr.P.C. to receive a document i.e. copy of Adhar Card dated 15.02.

2012 and Unique Identification Card given by the Central Government to prove that he was residing in Plot No.22, but not in plot No.13 which address was shown by the complainant in the address of the statutory notice of cheque dishonor stated sent to the petitioner and there is no service of notice and accrual of cause of action thereby to maintain the complainant case. As said application on contest was ended in dismissal on 18.01.2017, present revision is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the revision respondent No.1 even served as shown from the computer technology track record, Indian Post of the notice delivered on

04.04.2017 but no representation, hence taken as heard the respondent-complainant and perused the material on record.

3. The appeal is pending against the conviction judgment. It is one of the contentions of there is no statutory notice duly served to the address of the accused and thereby there is no accrual of cause of action to maintain the private complaint to take cognizance and it is the contention that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the same and it requires to be considered in the pending appeal by receiving additional evidence of Adhar Card showing the address of the accused to which the notice is supposed to be sent. In fact, the law is fairly settled regarding the address for service and presumption of service from the three judge Bench expression of the Apex Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed1.

However, once it is the contention of the notice issued to the address of the accused knowingly by the defacto-complainant but for to wrong address, it is a matter of appreciation. Once such is the case, the lower appellate Court should not have dismissed the application but for kept pending to decide along with the appeal for considering any necessity of receiving the same or not for deciding the appeal on merits.

4. In the result, the revision is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.473 of 2016 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, and to restore to file for deciding along with the appeal on merits.

1 (2007) 6 SCC 555

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

__________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Dt.01.06.2017 Vvr.