Ms. Daevi Prakash Sheth v. Ms. Heenaben Rameshkumar Kathiria And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

CRR/42/2024 Ms. Daevi Prakash Sheth ...Petitioner/Revisionist Vs.

Ms. Heenaben Rameshkumar Kathiriya & Anr.

... Respondents Mr. Pardeshia Munda ... for the Petitioner July 04, 2024 [M.A.Mobin] Item No.1 The petitioner in the present revision petition is challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair, A & N Islands in Criminal Revision petition no. 8 of 2023. Vide the impugned order dated 27.3.2024, the Learned Sessions Judge had directed the petitioner to take fresh steps for effecting service on respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 has already been declared a pro-claimed offender by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class I, Port Blair vide order dated 29.11.2022. Respondent No. 1 is absconding and LOC has been issued against her on 20th July, 2021. It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 has not furnished any fresh address. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she had affected the notice of service issued by the Learned Sessions Judge on her last known address but the same has returned with the remark "item return, addressee

left". Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr. reported in 2007(6) SCC 555.

This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and has perused the materials on record. It is noted that the respondent no. 1 has already been declared a Pro-claimed offender by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class I, Port Blair, vide order dated 29. 11. 2022. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 neither entered appearance nor participated in the proceedings before the Trial Court. The respondent no. 1 did not take any step against the order dated 29.11.2022. Hence, it is evident from the record that the respondent no.1 is absconding and is evading the process of law. The intention of serving notice is not to protect the right of dishonest evader. The petitioner served Court notice on the last known address of respondent no.1 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent no.1 has moved from his last known address.

Hence, as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act the service on respondent no. 1 can be treated as complete. Even though the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was with regard to the service of legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the underlined principle in the judgments are relevant i.e. a notice served on the address at his/her last known address can be presumed to have been duly served unless otherwise proved.

In view of the same, the present revisional petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No. 08 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

The learned Sessions judge is directed to treat the service on respondent no. 1 as complete and proceed further in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 08 of 2023 in accordance with law. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. (Gaurang Kanth, J.)