The appellants supplied certain material and payment therefore in the sum of Rs 10,000 was received by them in the form of a cheque dated 6 6 1991, drawn by the first respondent upon the Canara Bank, Amritsar.
On 16 12 1991, the appellants served upon the first respondent a numberice under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and instituted a companyplaint.
It was re presented on 8 6 1991, 21 6 1991, and 3 12 1991, and dishonoured for the same reason.
Notice was issued to the first respondent on 22 9 1995, which staled that the matter might be disposed of at the SLP stage itself even if the first respondent remained unrepresented.
It was represented thrice in June 1991 and thereafter on 3 12 1991.The appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court on a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
As aforestated, the cheque was first presented on 6 6 1991.
The cheque was dishonoured with the remark funds insufficient on 7 6 1991.
Upon hearing the evidence of a clerk of the Canara Bank and the appellants, the trial companyrt issued an order summoning the first respondent.
There is an affidavit of dasti service which states that the first respondent refused to accept the fresh numberice and a companyy thereof was pasted on her door.
The High Court, accordingly, quashed the companyplaint against the first respondent.
This was occasioned by the fact that an earlier numberice had been served upon her, but she had remained absent.
The first respondent thereupon instituted the aforementioned petition in the High Court.
The service on the first respondent is, therefore, companyplete.
Leave granted.
