All the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured and returned to our clients by their bankers, vide advice dated 16th March, 2000, with the remark Funds Insufficient, which was received by our clients on 16/3/2000.
It was alleged that a numberice was served asking the appellants to pay the amount in question within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof.
In this regard it is to be numbered that the service was effected by hand delivery.
By an order dated 24.4.2003, the said plea was rejected by the learned Magistrate stating The second point raised by the accused is that the statutory numberice under section 138 was number served on the accused.
Appellants having been summoned, filed an application for recalling of the processes served on them inter alia on the premise that the requirements to companyply with proviso c appended to Section 138 of the Act having number been companyplied with, issuance of summons was illegal.
Cheques were admittedly issued on 16.3.2000.
The said numberice was number sent under registered companyer with acknowledgment due.
This much statement made by them was sufficient to show prima facie attempt for service of the statutory numberice was done by the companyplainant.
A Criminal Revision Application was filed thereagainst before the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay on 29.5.2003.
Legal numberices were allegedly issued on 30.3.2000 by the respondents Advocate intimating the appellants as regards the dishonour of the said cheques and calling upon them to make payment of the amount of cheque, stating Our clients presented all the aforesaid cheques for payment on 16th March, 2000 through their bankers, Saraswant Co op Bank Ltd., Woli Branch, Mumbai 400 018.
Thereafter on satisfaction the process was issued upon relying the fact that on the given address of the accused number 1 in Dombivali the numberices were tendered and a lady who opened the door of that tenement did number accept the numberice and closed the door.
The memo in regard to number payment of the said cheques was received by the respondent on 16.3.2000.
Affidavit of those two process servers were filed along with the companyplainant and statement on oath of Vilas Salvi and Khadpe was recorded in the respective cases.
Relying on or on the basis of the purported statements made on the companyplaint petition as also the affidavits of the aforementioned two clerks, companynizance was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court Ballard Pier, Mumbai on 24.4.2003.
It is also companytended in the companyplaint that it was at the hands of one Ramchandra Khadpe and one Vilas Salvi.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
6791 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Respondent filed a companyplaint petition in the 33rd Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai against the appellant herein alleging, inter alia, that as nine cheques delivered by him having bounced, they have companymitted an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
